Court Opinion

ID: 9638020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:30:11.659088+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:02.769725
License: Public Domain

CLARK, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
Because of doubt how far we can or should interfere with the Secretary’s refusal to permit a deportable alien to leave the country voluntarily and because the final action of the board of review is based on broad grounds of discretion, I concur in the order of affirmance, although I am disturbed by the reasons assigned for the refusal in the original memorandum of the board’s chairman (that of October 25, 1938). Here, after saying that, if the complaint made against the alien was biased and untrue, “the alien should not be singled out as not deserving the treatment usually given to aliens having a citizen child,” he apparently recommends that no investigation be made because of the expense involved. And he suggests that in cases where complaints are made derogatory to aliens “they must affirmatively show there is no basis to the complaints.” Had this been the sole basis of refusal, I think the result would have been unfortunate. It would give to scheming and malicious persons too great an opportunity — by merely mailing a letter — to prejudice the alien most seriously .in securing a privilege of great practical value to him. It does not befit the Government — if it is- to allow unsupported letters to affect its decision — to say it will not look behind them because of the expense involved, particularly when, as here, .there is a strong showing by the alien in rebuttal. What more could an alien show “affirmatively” ? He produced not only supporting -letters, but a full explanation, offered by his attorney, of his business relations with the writers of the letters. And he showed an executed agreement of final adjustment of all their business affairs. That this agreement disclosed their obligation to pay him a sum of money in installments over a period of ten months did not make their desire for his deportation seem more disinterested.
The parties were known. They were in or near New York City. There would have been slight cost in bringing them face to face before a responsible government official and thus testing the real nature of the complaints. A decision made after such oral confrontation of the parties would be entitled to respect. I think the Secretary should go this far in cases where, except for accusing letters, she is prepared to grant the privilege of voluntary withdrawal. As the opinion points out, however, the final decision of the board itself is rested on other grounds.