Document: 347 U.S. 260 74 S.Ct. 499 98 L.Ed. 681 UNITED STATES ex rel. ACCARDIv.SHAUGHNESSY. No. 366. Argued Feb. 2, 1954. Decided March 15, Mr. Jack Wasserman, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Marvin E. Frankel, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a habeas corpus action in which petitioner attacks validity denial his application suspension deportation under provisions § 19(c) Immigration Act 1917.1 Admittedly deportable, alleged, among other things, that by Board Appeals was prejudged through issuance Attorney General 1952, prior to Board's decision, confidential list 'unsavory characters' including petitioner's name, made it impossible him 'to secure fair consideration this case.' The District Judge refused offer proof, denying writ on allegations without written opinion. A divided panel Court Second Circuit affirmed. 206 F.2d 897. We granted certiorari. 346 884, 138. 2 Department's immigration file reveals following relevant facts. He born Italy Italian parents 1909 and entered United States train from Canada 1932 inspection an visa. entry clearly falls 14 19242 uncontested ground deportation. proceedings against began 1947. In 1948 he applied pursuant 1917. section as amended provides, pertinent part, that: 3 'In case any alien (other than one whom subsection (d) applicable) who deportable law has proved good moral character preceding five years, may * suspend such if not ineligible naturalization or ineligible, ineligibility solely reason race, finds (a) would result serious economic detriment citizen legally resident spouse, parent, minor child alien; (b) resided continuously seven years more residing upon July 1, 1948.' 4 Hearings charge were held before officers Naturalization Service at various times 1952. hearing officer ultimately found recommended discretionary relief. On 7, Acting Commissioner adopted officer's findings recommendation. Almost nine months later, April 3, 1953, affirmed decision officer. warrant issued same day arrangements actual take place 24, 1953. 5 scene then shifted Southern New York. One scheduled sued out corpus. Noonan dismissed 30 order, formally May 5, never appealed. Arrangements depart 19.3 However, wife commenced filing petition second corpus.4 grounds information belief, attacking administrative refusal deportation.5 principal October 1952—after Commissioner's but Appeals—the announced press conference planned deport certain characters'; about date prepared hundred individuals, petitioner, whose wished; circulated Department all employees Appeals; related publicity amounted public prejudgment so impossible. Although opposing affidavit submitted government counsel denied 'that based outside record' contended allegation 'frivolous,' repeated colloquy with court statement had first man General's proscribed deportees.' 6 Clancy did order summarily issue An appeal taken contention required should have been proved. majority Appeals' thought record amply supported deportation; nothing indicate officials considered anything arriving case; ruled assertion mere 'suspicion belief' extraneous matters does require hearing. Frank dissented. 7 questions presented raised certiorari are thus properly us. crucial question whether alleged conduct deprived rights guaranteed statute regulations thereto. 8 Regulations6 force effect law7 supplement bare bones 19(c). prescribe procedure be followed processing alien's Until 1952 revision regulations, called decisions three separate levels below AttorneyGeneral—hearing officer, Commissioner, Appeals. appointed General, serves pleasure, operates providing 'in considering determining appeals, shall exercise discretion power conferred appropriate necessary disposition case. final except those cases reviewed General. *' CFR 90.3(c) (1949). See 6.1(d)(1) (Rev. 1952). And refer review which: 9 '(a) directs him. 10 '(b) chairman believes referred its decision. 11 '(c) requests agrees.' 90.12 6.1(h)(1) 12 just quoted pinpoint decisive fact case: required, still is, own judgment when appeals. clear import broad himself meaningless expected render accord collective belief. unequivocal terms delegate authority confers General; scope became yardstick Board's. word 'discretion' means statutory grant power, recipient must according understanding conscience. applies equal short, long remain operative, denies right sidestep dictate manner. 13 think charges precisely what forbid do: dictating alleges included name wanted deported; announcements reveal regard listing preliminary investigation contrary, listed persons 'planned deport.' And, intention quite members. fact, Assistant characterized 'Attorney To sure, allege ordered deny relief aliens.' It naive expect heavy handed way doing things. proof offered told previous 'We can't do thing your because (petitioner's) hundred.' believe sufficient where body charged nonstatutory board composed subordinates within department headed individual formulated, announced, views pending proceeding. important emphasize we here reviewing reversing manner exercised. If discussing evidence supporting undermining claim Rather, object failure discretion, contrary existing valid regulations. 15 can prove receive new burden proscription list. After recall cancellation rule thereof independent after hearing, right.8 Of course, unable Court; entitled opportunity try. successful, fail convince their suspension, least will afforded due process proceedings. 16 Reversed. 17 JACKSON, REED, BURTON, MINTON join, dissenting. 18 feel constrained dissent legal doctrine being announced. seems adage hard make bad law. 19 Peculiarities distinguish others judicially reviewable borne mind. hearings questioned fairness which, some limitations, tested Nishimura Ekiu v. States, 142 651, 336, 35 1146. Neither involving personal status, eligible citizenship, procedures declaratory injunction. McGrath Kristensen, 340 162, 71 224, 95 173. Petitioner admittedly country illegally deportability relate only carrying entirely suspended. 20 Congress vested alone, circumstances. corpus, first, nature analogous pardon commutation sentence, trust no thinks subject judicial control; second, exists virtue constitution, common lawful Even proves gives matter merely establishes condition precedent Habeas enforce rights, transfer courts control executive discretion. 21 interference find, found, instructions so, neither nor agency. created part office, names members, they responsible supervision direction, every unlimited revision. deportation, subordinate actually makes it, impeached showing overinfluenced members staff event advisory. 22 appears belief Board. treating But, our view, contemplates tolerates redelegation Board, even left standing him, sense entrusted free congressional control, specifically reserved itself overrule acts grace. 54 Stat. 672, U.S.C. (1946) 155(c), amended, (Supp. V) 155(c). overtaxes nai vete politics entrust creature Senate confirmation. 23 Cases challenging orders, Bridges Wixon, 326 135, 65 1443, 89 2103, whatever merits demerits, here. jurisdictional questions. cases, also, assert, viz., private deported prescribed Congress. involved 24 better grace review. But adapted determination thrusting task purely function. like currency, debased over-issue certainly too niggardly use. affirm leave responsibility execution squarely put it. 39 889, 155(c) (1946 ed., Supp. V). Section 405 savings clause Nationality U.S.C.A. 1101 et seq., provides 'Nothing contained Act, unless otherwise provided therein, construed affect proceeding time effect; brought proceedings, statutes parts repealed are, hereby continued effect. 1917, enactment (June 27, 1952), regarded meaning subsection.' 66 280, p. 734 (1952), note. Since Accardi's 1948, 1917 continues govern rather stringent equivalent 244, 214, 1254 1254. 'Any entering enter into custody sections 43 214 (1946). perpetuated 241(a)(1) (2) 204, 1251(a)(1) 1251(a)(1, 2). Meanwhile, Accardi moved reconsider motion 8. Res judicata apply Salinger Loisel, 1924, 265 44 519, 68 989; Wong Doo 239, 524, 999. similar exercised favorable herein constitutes abuse discretion.' wholly frivolous contention, adequately disposed Cir., 897, 901. Another maintains respect (Joseph Accardi).' elaborate charge, file. 'because denied,' 'confidential list' discussed Hence assume reliance repeats caused applicable during most appear CFR, 1949, Pts. 150 90 1951 Pocket Supp., 150, 151 90. corresponding promulgated Rev.1952, 242—244 6; Fed.Reg. 930. Boske Comingore, 1900, 177 459, 701, 846; Bilokumsky Tod, 1923, 263 149, 155, 54, 56, 221; 1945, 150—156, 1450, 1453, 2103. cited note supra.

Category: 1