Court Opinion

ID: 9443897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:33:28.156845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:38.383856
License: Public Domain

ORR, Circuit Judge,
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of the Court. In the instant case questions of fact were presented for determination' in the deportation action. Under such circumstances the administrative proceedings must be ex*872hausted before habeas corpus can be entertained, It has been held, however, that in a case where a question of jurisdiction is raised and the facts undisputed, leaving for determination solely a question of law, a writ of habeas corpus is a proper remedy even though administrative proceedings have not been exhausted. United States ex rel. Bradley v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 1947, 163 F.2d 328.
I would further affirm on the ground relied on by the trial court that the restraint upon the person of the petitioner by virtue of the order, of conditional parole was not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court on a writ of habeas corpus. Stallings v. Splain, 1920, 253 U.S. 339, 40 S.Ct. 537, 64 L.Ed. 940; In re Rowland, D. C.W.D.Ark. 1949, 85 F.Supp. 550, affirmed, 8 Cir., 1950, 179 F.2d 709, certiorari denied, 339 U.S. 952, 70 S.Ct. 841, 94 L.Ed. 1365; Sibray v. United States, 3 Cir., 1911, 185 F. 401.