In re Grgas
Petition of Jerka GRGAS, to be Admitted a Citizen of the United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Byrne (author)
Analysis
The Immigration and Naturalization Service moved to vacate a prior order admitting the petitioner to citizenship, citing Rule 60(b) and INA § 340(j). The court denied the motion, finding the government's reliance on hearsay insufficient to justify the extraordinary remedy of vacatur without a full trial under INA § 340(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to vacate order of citizenship admission denied“The motion is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the government's evidence consisted of hearsay from another agency, which is insufficient to support the extraordinary remedy of vacatur under Rule 60(b) or the specific statutory provision cited. The court properly emphasized the petitioner's right to a trial on the issues as contemplated by the statute for cancellation of citizenship, rather than allowing a summary deprivation of citizenship based on untested allegations. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It correctly applies the principle that extraordinary remedies like vacatur require a stronger showing than mere hearsay, especially when the underlying statute provides for a trial. The court's refusal to 'short cut' the statutory process is a proper exercise of judicial discretion and due process.
Opinion — Byrne
BYRNE, District Judge.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service has made a motion to vacate an order of this court made and entered on February 23, 1955, admitting the petitioner to citizenship of the United States of America. As authority for its motion the Government cites Section 340(j) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451 (j) and Rule 60 (b), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.
Assuming that the cited statutory provisions authorize this court to “short cut” the court proceedings prescribed in Section 340(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451(a), the showing made by the Government is insufficient to warrant resort to this extraordinary remedy.
The Government asks this court to cancel the citizenship of the plaintiff on the basis of an affidavit reciting a hearsay report received from another agency “which report was based on information believed by such agency to be reliable”.
If the Government obtains evidence sufficient to justify the institution of proceedings for the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451(a), it should do so. Surely this court, in ruling on a motion, should not cancel petitioner’s citizenship on the basis of hearsay statements and thereby deprive her of an opportunity to contest the cancellation upon a trial of the issues as contemplated in 8 U.S.C.A. § 1451(a).
The motion is denied.