|
|
Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957)
United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy No. 205 Argued March 4, 1957 Decided March 25, 1957 353 U.S. 72
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioners, husband and wife, entered the United States in 1951 as alien seamen, and remained unlawfully after expiration of their limited lawful stay. In November, 1951, a child was born to them -- an American citizen by birth. In January, 1952, petitioners applied for suspension of deportation under §19(c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, which conditionally authorizes suspension of a deportation which "would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen . . . who is the . . . minor child of such deportable alien." The Board of Immigration Appeals found that petitioners were eligible for relief but, as a matter of administrative discretion, denied suspension of deportation, relying mainly on the fact that petitioners had established no roots or ties in this country.
Held: there was no error in the decision of the Board. Pp. 73-79.
(a) The Board applied the correct legal standards in deciding whether petitioners met the statutory prerequisites for suspension of deportation. P. 77.
(b) Suspension of deportation under the statute is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met. P. 77.
(c) It was not an abuse of discretion to withhold relief in this case, since the reasons relied on by the Hearing Officer and the Board were neither capricious nor arbitrary. P. 77.
(d) It was not improper or arbitrary for the Board, in exercising its discretion, to take into account the congressional policy underlying the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, though that Act was inapplicable to this case. P. 78.
(e) The conclusion that the Board, in exercising its discretion, may take into account the current policies of Congress is fortified by the fact that § 19(c) provides for close congressional supervision over suspensions of deportation. Pp. 78-79.
233 F.2d 705, affirmed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957) in 353 U.S. 72 353 U.S. 73. Original Sources, accessed November 25, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KA9QPN2ES6XGP8M.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957), in 353 U.S. 72, page 353 U.S. 73. Original Sources. 25 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KA9QPN2ES6XGP8M.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72 (1957). cited in 1957, 353 U.S. 72, pp.353 U.S. 73. Original Sources, retrieved 25 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=KA9QPN2ES6XGP8M.
|