Gerard Beauvil v. Edward Ahrens, in His Capacity as Dist. Dir. of the Immigr. Andnaturalization Serv., 333 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Gerard Beauvil v. Edward Ahrens, in His Capacity as Dist. Dir. of the Immigr. Andnaturalization Serv., 333 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Edwards v. Sasser (vaed, 1979-01-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" Edwards v. Sasser
E.D. Va. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCranie v. United States, 333 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1964) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Warwick Mason Wyatt v. United States
4th Cir. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See McCranie v. United States, 333 F.2d 307 (5th Cir, 1964); Riadon v. United States, 274 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1960).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Philip Landry v. Judge J. Robert Hoepfner and William Guste, Jr., Attorney General, State of Louisiana (2×)
5th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also McCranie v. United States, 333 F.2d 307, 307 (5th Cir.1964).
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Schipani
E.D.N.Y · 1968 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., McCranie v. United States, 333 F.2d 307 (5th Cir. 1964); Orfield, Trial By Jury In Federal Criminal Procedure, 1962 Duke L.J. 29 , 77 (1962).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerard BEAUVIL Et Al., Appellants,
v.
Edward AHRENS, in His Capacity as District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Et Al., Appellees
21260.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 18, 1964.
333 F.2d 307
Charles R. Ashmann, Miami, Fla., Barry L. Zisser, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants., Alvred E. Sapp, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Maurice A. Roberts, Irving Appleman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (William A. Meadows, Jr., U. S. Atty., Don R. Bennett, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellees.
Tuttle, Brown, Brewster.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying release of some 20 Haitian citizens under order of exclusion from the United States as visa-less immigrants.

We find that there was no error in either the factual finding that these appellants had not “entered” the United States before they were in custody of the immigration officials [1] or the procedural handling of the case.

We are conscious of the possibility that appellants might face unusual hazards if their exclusion will cause them to be returned to their native land. However, the officials who have thus far considered their case do not have the legal authority to consider this problem. Our affirmance of the denial of the writ of habeas corpus does not prevent their making such representation thereabout hereafter as they may consider appropriate.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. If an entry had actually been made a different type of administrative proceeding would have been available to the aliens, since they would then be subject to “expulsion” proceedings rather than “exclusion” proceedings.