Valentim Joao MEDEIROS, Appellant, v. Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit1957-01-17No. No. 13645

240 F.2d 634

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's denial of the preliminary injunction is affirmed. An alien's admissions during deportation proceedings regarding alienage, entry conditions, and unauthorized overstay are sufficient to establish deportability without requiring the court to address challenges to the legality of arrest or document seizure.

Medeiros, a Portuguese citizen, entered the United States in August 1955 as a temporary visitor with permission to stay until February 1956. He obtained employment and remained in the country beyond his authorized departure date. In May 1956, immigration officers approached him, obtained his passport and documents, and brought him to an immigration office for questioning. He was subsequently served with an arrest warrant and a deportation hearing was conducted.

Medeiros challenged the deportation order, arguing that the officers had unlawfully arrested him without proper warrant and unlawfully seized his documents without a search warrant. He also raised procedural objections to the hearing itself. The trial court denied his request for a preliminary injunction blocking the deportation. Because Medeiros's own admissions at the deportation hearing—establishing that he was an alien who overstayed his visa—were sufficient on their own to prove he was deportable, the appellate court did not need to resolve his other arguments.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether immigration officers violated constitutional protections by arresting an alien without a warrant
Whether documents were unlawfully seized without a search warrant
Whether an alien's own testimony regarding alienage and overstay is sufficient to establish deportability in an administrative proceeding

Procedural posture

Medeiros appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction that would have voided the deportation order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Medeiros, a native and citizen of Portugal, entered the United States on August 14, 1955 as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. It is not disputed that his legal right to remain in the United States under the terms of his entry expired on February 2, 1956.

The record indicates Medeiros obtained employment eight days after his arrival and failed to depart in accordance with the terms of his entry. On May 7, 1956 Medeiros was approached by two Immigration Officers who, after identifying themselves, requested his passport and related documents. When Medeiros advised the officers his papers were at his residence, the officers accompanied him io his home where a Portuguese passport was produced upon request. Medeiros also surrendered to the officers several check stubs and three sheets of paper, identified as affidavits. Medeiros then went to the Immigration Office in temporary custody of the Immigration Officers for purposes of interrogation.

The following day, May 8, Medeiros again appeared at the Immigration Office where a sworn statement was made and he was served with a warrant of arrest and released on bond the same day.

At the deportation hearing held on May 16, 1956, Medeiros testified, over objection of counsel, as to his alienage, the date and condition of his entry and his unauthorized overstay. The warrant of arrest and record of sworn statement, both dated May 8,1956, were also admitted in evidence. A deportation order was entered by the special inquiry officer granting voluntary departure in lieu of deportation, and Medeiros was subsequently given to November 12, 1956 to effect his departure.

Appellant alleged in his complaint for a declaratory judgment voiding the deportation order that the action by the Immigration Officers on May 7, 1956 constituted an unlawful arrest and that the documents had been unlawfully seized without a search warrant. He also alleged certain procedural errors in the conduct of the deportation hearing. Although we believe appellant’s contentions are without merit, it is not necessary to pass on his arguments to affirm the action of the district court denying appellant’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The admissions of the appellant at the deportation hearings without more were sufficient to establish deportability.

On the whole record it is plain that the district court’s action is clearly supported by Bilokumsky v. Tod, 1923, 263 U.S. 149, 155, 44 S.Ct. 54, 68 L.Ed. 221.

“Since the proceeding was not a criminal one, [the alien] might have been compelled by legal process to testify whether or not he was an alien.”

See also Tsimounis v. Holland, 3 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 907.

The order of the district court is therefore

Affirmed.

. Appellant was held subject to deportation under Section 241(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 204, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a) (9), as an alien who after admission as a nonimmigrant bailed to maintain the nonimmigrant status in which he was admitted * * * or to comply with the conditions of any such status.”