U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1951

Anderson v. Boyd

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 28, 1951 · Healy, Lemmon, Orr, Per Curiam

188 F.2d 530 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edwards E. Merges, Seattle, Wash., for appellant., J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., John E. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States ex rel. Di Dente v. Ault (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1951)

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.

Appellant, an alien, was ordered deported. He claims that there was no evidence before the Board of Special Inquiry to support the finding of his membership in a subversive organization as defined in the statute. 1 However, appellant had illegally entered the United States and, as held by the Board of Immigration Appeals upon undisputed evidence, was subject to deportation. 2

His claim that the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act 3 were not followed is without merit. This deportation proceeding was initiated long prior to the effective date of that Act 4 and the final administrative order on review was made prior to the administrative regulations adapted following the decision in Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 70 S.Ct. 445, 94 L.Ed. 616.

Affirmed.

. Title 8, Section 137, U.S.C.A.

. Title 8, Section 155, U.S.C.A.

. Title 5, Section 1001, et seq., U.S.C.A.

. The concluding clause in the last sentence of See. 1011, Title 5 U.S.O.A., reads “and no procedural requirement shall be mandatory as to any agency proceeding initiated prior to the effective date of such requirement”.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.