In the Matter of Accardi

15 Cited authorities

Shaughnessy v. Mezei
345 U.S. 206 (1953) Cited 630 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an excluded alien's indefinite detention on Ellis Island did not violate constitutional law because “he is treated as if he stopped at the border”
Knauff v. Shaughnessy
338 U.S. 537 (1950) Cited 391 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."
Leng May Ma v. Barber
357 U.S. 185 (1958) Cited 209 times
Holding that an alien's parole into the United States "did not alter her status as an excluded alien"
SIU FUNG LUK v. ROSENBERG
409 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1969) Cited 23 times
In Luk v. Rosenberg (9 Cir. 1969), 409 F.2d 555, we held that although it might be more convenient for the alien to process his new application for admission while in the United States, the District Director's denial of a stay was not an abuse of discretion.
United States v. Vasilatos
209 F.2d 195 (3d Cir. 1954) Cited 27 times
Holding that a ship crewmember "entered" the country under § 1326 when his request for admission was decided, not when he merely crossed the border into the United States
United States v. Murff
176 F. Supp. 253 (S.D.N.Y. 1959) Cited 18 times
Holding that alien paroled and released on bond pending exclusion proceedings was "still, in theory of law, ‘on the threshold of initial entry.’ " (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) )
Menon v. Esperdy
413 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1969) Cited 4 times
Noting that "since a parole does not constitute an admission into the United States . . . th[e] appeal involve[d] an exclusion . . . rather than an expulsion"
Klapholz v. Esperdy
201 F. Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1961) Cited 7 times
In Klapholz v. Esperdy, 201 F. Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), the alien applied for admission on shipboard on July 30, 1956, and was served with Form I-122 on August 2, 1956.
Klapholz v. Esperdy
302 F.2d 928 (2d Cir. 1962) Cited 5 times
No. 324, Docket 27399. Argued April 26, 1962. Decided May 18, 1962. Jackson G. Cook, New York City (Stuart Wadler, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant. Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., for the S.D. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee. Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. This is an appeal from a summary judgment which dismissed a complaint seeking review of an exclusion order
In re Dubbiosi
191 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Va. 1961) Cited 6 times
Holding that alien crew member who remained on board ship at Virginia port did not effect entry because he was kept under guard by INS agents and was thus never free from official restraint
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,732 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

In the Matter of Accardi

15 Cited authorities

Holding that an excluded alien's indefinite detention on Ellis Island did not violate constitutional law because “he is treated as if he stopped at the border”

Holding that "[w]hatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned."

Holding that an alien's parole into the United States "did not alter her status as an excluded alien"

In Luk v. Rosenberg (9 Cir. 1969), 409 F.2d 555, we held that although it might be more convenient for the alien to process his new application for admission while in the United States, the District Director's denial of a stay was not an abuse of discretion.

Holding that a ship crewmember "entered" the country under § 1326 when his request for admission was decided, not when he merely crossed the border into the United States

Holding that alien paroled and released on bond pending exclusion proceedings was "still, in theory of law, ‘on the threshold of initial entry.’ " (quoting Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei , 345 U.S. 206, 212, 73 S.Ct. 625, 97 L.Ed. 956 (1953) )

Noting that "since a parole does not constitute an admission into the United States . . . th[e] appeal involve[d] an exclusion . . . rather than an expulsion"

In Klapholz v. Esperdy, 201 F. Supp. 294 (S.D.N.Y. 1961), the alien applied for admission on shipboard on July 30, 1956, and was served with Form I-122 on August 2, 1956.

Holding that alien crew member who remained on board ship at Virginia port did not effect entry because he was kept under guard by INS agents and was thus never free from official restraint

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"