U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1953

United States Ex Rel. Spinella v. Savoretti, District Director of United States Immigration and Naturalization Service Dist. No. 6, Miami, Fla

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided March 2, 1953 · No. 14108 · Hutcheson, Strum, Rives

201 F.2d 364 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

David W. Walters, Miami, Fla., for appellant., Fred Botts, Ernest L. Duhaime, Assts. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Herbert S. Phillips, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., Douglas P. Lillis, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Rivas v. Garland (District Court, W.D. New York 2022)
Spinella v. Esperdy (District Court, S.D. New York 1960)
Omaliki v. Barr (District Court, W.D. New York 2020)
Shiqi Xue v. Holder (2d Cir. 2009)
Okpoju v. Ridge (5th Cir. 2004)
Wang v. Ashcroft (2d Cir. 2003)
Mu-Xing Wang v. Ashcroft (2d Cir. 2003)
Mazen Al Najjar v. John Ashcroft (11th Cir. 2001)
Petition for Naturalization of Marko Terzich (3d Cir. 1958)
In re Naturalization of Terzich (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
Harry Carlisle v. Herman R. Landon, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1955)
Banks v. United States (5th Cir. 1953)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

His petition, for writ of habeas corpus for release under bond pending deportation proceedings, denied below, the petitioner appealed to this court.

After the cause had been assigned for hearing but before the hearing date, appellee filed in the cause a motion to dismiss the appeal as moot, supporting it with a certified copy of the deportation proceedings showing that appellant had been ordered deported and the deportation order had become final.

Not at. all disputing that appellant had been ordered deported and the Board of Immigration Appeals had dismissed the appeal from that order, appellant insists that the order is not final because, (1) appellant still has a right to file, and has filed, a motion to reconsider or reopen his case, and (2) if he should fail in said motion, he still has a right to seek, by habeas corpus, judicial relief therefrom.

We cannot agree with appellant. We think it clear: that appellant has exhausted his administrative remedies; that the deportation order is now final; that the question raised by his appeal, whether the court erred in denying him bond pending the deportation proceedings, has become moot; 1 and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Dismissed, as moot.

. U. S. ex rel. Eisler v. District Director of Immigration, 2 Cir., 162 F.2d 408; Savage v. White, 56 App.D.C. 365, 14 F. 2d 352; Cover v. Schwartz, 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 541.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.