Court Opinion

ID: 9445911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:40:59.491021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:26.861441
License: Public Domain

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.
I dissent.
I base my dissent upon the belief that the review scope of habeas corpus is not the same as that of a declaratory judgment action in deportation and exclusion eases and that the relief accorded in such cases is not exactly the same as that of the other.
It seems to me that the real bases of District Judge Byrnes’ action in the instant case and, as well, that of the majority upon the appeal is, that once detention of the alien by the immigration authorities is tested by habeas corpus, the judgment is res judicata, as against any other proceeding touching not only the validity of the detention but also the validity of the whole proceeding under the immigration act. I am not in accord with this conclusion. It is true that Brownell v. Tom We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 77 S.Ct. 252, 1 L.Ed.2d 225, tends toward such conclusion, but I do not find it decisive on the point; and I think a close analysis of the relevant statutes leads the other way.