AMERICAN IMMIGRATION LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
Law Professor Committee
frank winston & Franco Capriotti (1995-1999 co-chairs)
Date of Last Update
Saturday, June 12, 1999
Please note: This list does NOT reflect the changes submitted at the AILA meeting in June 1998. Feel free to send additions and changes to franco@capriotti.com. We are especially interested in adding links to your class web pages.
1999 AILA Immigration Law Professors Committee Annual Meeting
frank d. winston, Franco Capriotti (co-chairs)
Saturday, June 12, 1999 - 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. - Seattle, Washington
Business meeting and NO-host lunch.
We will be announcing our third annual award for Excellence in Teaching.
Saturday, June 12, 1999 - 1:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m. - (Immediately following business meeting)
OPEN DISCUSSION: New directons for the committee.
Moderators: Franco Capriotti & frank winston
Both programs are open to all immigration law professor committee members and prospective or 'hopeful' immigration law professors, AILA members, liasion from AILA Board, prospective AILA members, YLD and law students.
Saturday, June 12, 1999 4:00 - 5:00 p.m. Great Moments in Immigration History.
The AILA Law Professor Committee continues to be the annual sponsor of this event. Your support and attendance will be most welcome.
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVENT IS SPONSORED BY THE AILA IMMIGRATION LAW PROFESSOR COMMITTEE
(not-so) GREAT MOMENTS IN IMMIGRATION HISTORY
Saturday, June 12, 1999 - 4:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Hazel Wolf was born in Canada to a British father and an American mother. She came to the United States at a very early age. During the 40's she was the legal secretary to attorney John Caughlan, who always represented the underdog. She was also accused of being a Communist. In 1949 the INS began deportation proceedings against her. Her case went to the Ninth Circuit four times, from 1954 to 1961. The last entry on LEXIS shows "cert. denied" in 1961. But she's alive and kicking, over 100 years old, and still here! How did she do it?
Ernesto Mangaoang was born in the Philippines. In the Seattle area he organized salmon cannery workers. In 1949 the INS began deportation proceedings against him. He was accused of being a Communist. His case went to the Ninth Circuit three times from 1950 to 1953, but escaped deportation. How did he do it?
Ernesto is gone, and John Caughlan (who represented Ernesto and Hazel) died a few weeks ago. But Ernesto's daughter, Juana Mana'o, and Hazel, and attorney Barry Hatten (who also represented Ernesto and Hazel) are here to tell you the story of labor and social activists in Seattle in the McCarthy era, how the INS tried to deport them, and how the community mobilized in resistance and victory.
Mangaoang first arrested August 1, 1949, while preparing to board plane to Alaska to negotiate union contract - warrant cites Immigration and Nationality Act Released August 2, 1949 on $5,000 cash bond
Re-arrested at union hall on November 17, 1949 (no new warrant issued) under order of District Director John P. Boyd that bond be increased to $10,000
Released November 28, 1949 by order of District Court in habeas proceedings - Judge Bowen rules that action of District Director is abuse of discretion
New warrant is issued by INS in Judge Bowen’s courtroom after the hearing on November 28, 1949 and Mangaoang is arrested for third time, but his release is obtained later the same day
Arrested October 22, 1950 in 3:00 a.m. raid, along with 47 others around United States, and charged under Internal Security Act of 1950
Deportation hearing held in INS Seattle District Office in October 1950; Mangaoang is in jail; his attorneys are not notified so he is unrepresented by counsel and therefore not allowed to cross-examine witnesses
District Court denies bail petition District Court’s decision reversed and remanded by Ninth Circuit on December 27, 1950
Released on bond on January 12, 1951 (after 83 days in King County Jail) Deportation order issued on August 10, 1951; BIA denies appeal on December 11, 1951
Habeas proceeding to overturn deportation order filed on December 28, 1951 in District Court
District Court denial appealed to Ninth Circuit - District Court’s decision reversed on June 17, 1953
Petition of INS to Supreme Court for writ of certiorari denied on November 9, 1953
Prepared by Juana Mana’o (de Mangaoang), a paralegal with the Seattle law firm of Garvey, Schubert & Barer
Ex Parte MANGAOANG No. 2417 United States District Court W.D. Washington, N.D. Nov. 28, 1949
Ernesto Mangaoang applied for writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from custody of the Director of Immigration and Naturalization, on ground that Attorney General abused his discretion in requiring petitioner to make bail or bond in the sum of $10,000 instead of the originally required $5,000 bond. The District Court, Bowen, J., entered an order in favor of the petitioner, holding that the court was bound to entertain the proceeding and that Attorney General abused his discretion. 87 F.Supp. 932
MANGAOANG v. BOYD No. 12757 United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec. 27, 1950 . . .
[T]he very fact that the Attorney General (or his assistants) has the power to grant bail before a deportation hearing or refuse it, carries with it the necessity of exercising discretion and certainly discretion must be based upon some phase of fact. . . . In the classical habeas corpus proceeding the petitioner is held upon a warrant of commitment issued by a tribunal after a hearing. The petitioner, informed as to the facts shown at the hearing, asks the court to compel their revelation in the Return of the Petition. With the basis of the retention revealed, it becomes the duty of the petitioner to introduce evidence to support his claim as to its illegality. It is highly important to notice that the instant proceedings do not have the background in which the basis for the detention must be shown. The Director (under advice of the Attorney General) upon his own motion and upon his own undisclosed reasons decided the discretionary point at issue. . . . At once it is apparent that the rule requiring petitioner to go forward with his proof in these circumstances throws an impossible burden upon him for he cannot well negate every possible combination of circumstances which might have convinced the Director that he is not a safe risk to be bailed. There could be no more appropriate situation for the application of the rule that the burden of showing a fact falls upon the one who has peculiar knowledge thereof. Of course, the Director knows what facts motivated his decision to deny bail. . . . Since they are not shown in the Return they should be shown by evidence at the hearing. . . . In all of the referred to evidence there is not a word as to any specific fact taken into account in the decision that petitioner . . . [is] not entitled to bail unless such may be found in the Director’s affidavit and the quoted message to the effect that the hearing . . . will be prompt and not long drawn out. But we think such evidence does not satisfy the requirement that the denial of bail must be based upon some specific fact pointing to the petitioner . . . as [a] bad risk . . . to enlargement on bail.
186 F.2d191 MANGAOANG v. BOYD, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service et al. No. 13537. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit June 17, 1953
It is to be noted also that following the proclamation of Philippine Independence in 1946 . . . this court noted that Filipinos in the position of this appellant were not . . . made aliens but were merely to be considered as aliens for limited purposes. We said 161 F.2d at page 560: ‘It will be noticed that the statute did not classify the Filipino as an alien; it provided that he should be considered as an alien for the limited purposes of the statute. By unmistakable inference the Congress was acting upon the premise that the Filipino residing in the United States before Philippine independence was not an alien, and under the legislation in process he would, insofar as such legislation was effective, not be declared to be an alien.’ . . . The question is whether the word ‘aliens’ in subdivision (C) - ‘Aliens who are members of * * * the Communist Party’, includes not only aliens in the ordinary sense but was intended to be broad enough to include persons who were in reality nationals of the United States but who under the provisions of the Act of March 24, 1934 were to be ‘considered as if they were aliens’. If it be conceded that the word ‘aliens’ in the present Act might possibly be given so broad a construction, the most that could be said is that this possibility suggests an ambiguity. . . . Clearly we deal here with an act which, if it were to apply to this appellant, would have a punitive impact. . . . If appellant is to be deported, it must be for some act which he long since may have reputed. We think that the rule of strict construction should be applied to a statute having this impact, and that subdivision (C) above quoted must be construed to use the word ‘aliens’ in the ordinary connotation, and not to include Filipinos who were for certain limited purposes to be ‘considered as * * * aliens’, under a section of a law long since obsolete and inoperative. We think therefore that the Act here in question did not authorize the appellant’s deportation. There is a further reason why the appellant cannot be regarded as subject to deportation. § 4(a) [of the Internal Security Act of 1950], quoted above, which authorizes the deportation of certain aliens, refers only to an alien ‘who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter, a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated’, etc. While it is true that in a popular and non-technical sense the appellant did ‘enter’ the United States in 1926, when he came here for permanent residence, yet in the sense of statutes relating to immigration, exclusion, citizenship and expulsion, Congress has always referred to ‘entering the United States’ in a limited and technical sense. The word ‘enter’ has always been used as a word of art. In that sense, when he came here in 1926, the appellant was not ‘entering the United States’. . . . We hold that as the statute is phrased, the alien’s prior entry in this sense is a condition precedent to the application of these provisions for deportation. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to order the appellant’s release from custody.
205 F.2d 553 John BOYD, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, and Robert D. Cummings, petitioners, v. Ernesto Arcebal MANGAOANG No. 325 Supreme Court of the United States November 9, 1953
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Denied. 74 S.Ct. 129 THE MESSAGE “Don’t you realize that a life which is not dedicated to a great idea is useless? It is a pebble lost in a field, when it should form part of some building.” José Rizal, El Filibusterismo “In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” Martin Niemoeller, pastor of the German Evangelical (Lutheran) Church “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Moderator: frank d. winston, San Francisco, California
Comments by:
The 2000 Immigration Law Workshop (which is an unofficial event of AILA and AALS) will be held in MAY 2000 at St. Mary's University School of Law in San Antonio, Texas.
The format will be similar to the previous three gatherings (Albequerque - 1994; Boulder - 1996; and, Berkeley - 1998).
Participants will gather for meals in the evening. The workshops will have a combined focus on teaching and scholarship.
Michael Scaperlanda at University of Oklahoma Law Center mscaperlanda@ou.edu
Webmaster: Franco Capriotti - franco@capriotti.com