Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES ex rel. FERNANDAS v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ELLIS ISLAND, NEW YORK HARBOR, 1933 — 65 F.2d 593 · caselaw · US
Evidence · MBE-tested
UNITED STATES ex rel. FERNANDAS v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ELLIS ISLAND, NEW YORK HARBOR
65 F.2d 593·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES ex rel. FERNANDAS v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ELLIS ISLAND, NEW YORK HARBOR.
No. 452.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
May 15, 1933.
Harry Hauskneeht, of New York City (Raphael H. Weissman, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and David L. Weissman, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Ira Koenig, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The relator was arrested and ordered deported. He arrived in the United States September 4,1928, and was admitted for permanent residence. On January 6, 1932, he was arrested on the charge of having been unlawfully in the United States. The charge is that he was a member of and affiliated with a proscribed party and that he has been regularly engaged with well-known Communists in their activities. There is sufficient evidence to justify his deportation.
It was competent to receive hearsay testimony. U. S. ex rel. Smith v. Curran, 12 F. (2d) 636 (C. C. A. 2); Kjar v. Doak, 61 F. (2d) 566 (C. C. A. 7).
His deportation was justified. U. S. ex rel. Yokinen v. Commissioner, 57 F.(2d) 707 (C. C. A. 2); Certiorari denied, 287 U. S. 607, 53 S. Ct. 11, 77 L. Ed.-.
Order affirmed.