§

In the Matter of B---- R

4 I&N Dec. 760 (B.I.A. 1952)
In the Matter of B---- R

6 Cited authorities

  1. Carlson v. Landon

    342 U.S. 524 (1952)   Cited 630 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that mandatory detention of Communist noncitizens in removal proceedings does not violate the Due Process Clause

  2. Harisiades v. Shaughnessy

    342 U.S. 580 (1952)   Cited 562 times
    Holding that the Ex Post Facto Clause does not apply to deportation orders because "[d]eportation, however severe its consequences, has been consistently classified as a civil rather than a criminal procedure"

  3. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod

    263 U.S. 149 (1923)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that there is no "presumption of citizenship comparable to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case. . . . To defeat deportation it is not always enough for the person arrested to stand mute at the hearing and put the Government upon its proof."

  4. Wilson v. United States

    162 U.S. 613 (1896)   Cited 459 times
    Rejecting claim that defendant's statement to investigating commissioner was involuntarily given, noting it is not essential to admissibility that confessor be warned that what he said could be used against him

  5. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corporation

    89 F. Supp. 349 (D. Mass. 1950)   Cited 30 times

    Civ. A. No. 7198. March 10, 1950. James M. Malloy, Holmes Baldridge, Richard B. O'Donnell, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., C. Worth Rowley, Edward M. Feeney, Roy Freed, Boston, Mass., Morton Myerson, Laurence S. Flaherty, Somerville, Mass., Sp. Attys. (Herbert A. Bergson, Brookline, Mass., Asst. Atty. Gen., Gerald J. McCarthy, Sp. Asst., to Atty. Gen., Alfred Karsted, Boston, Mass., Margaret H. Brass, Washington, D.C., Bernard I. Kaplan, Boston, Mass., Robert L. Grant, Boston, Mass., Clarence S. Walker

  6. United States v. Watkins

    71 F. Supp. 429 (S.D.N.Y. 1947)   Cited 10 times
    In United States ex rel. Von Kleczkowski v. Watkins, D.C., 71 F. Supp. 429, April 22, 1947, Judge Rifkind was faced with the contention that two enemy aliens brought into the United States involuntarily by the government were not subject to the immigration law and thought the point so clearly settled against them by the present immigration statute that he disposed of it by citing United States ex rel. Ling Yee Suey v. Spar, 2 Cir., 149 F.2d 881, and nothing more.