Dessalernos v. Savoretti

No. 287. Argued April 3, 1958.-Decided April 14, 1958.

In the circumstances of this case, petitioner. was entitled to have his application for suspension of deportation considered under § 244 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

244 F. 2d 178, judgment vacated and cause remanded to District Court with directiohs.

David W. Walters argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Maurice A. Roberts' argued the cause for respondent.

On the brief were Solicitor General Rankin and Beatrice Rosenbetg.

It was stipulated by the parties in the District Court that the sole question for decision is whether petitioner ;s entitled to have his application for suspension of deportation considered under § 244 (a) (1) of the Immi- gration and Nationality Act of 1952 (66 Stat. 163, 214; 8 U. S. C. § 1254 (a) (1)). We hold that petitioner is'so entitled. The judgment of the Court of Appeals (244 F. 2d 178) is therefore vacated and the cause is remanded to the District Court with directiofis to enter an appropriate judgment declaring that petitioner is entitled to have his application for suspension- of *deportation. considered by the United States Immigration and Naturalization So ordered.

Service under § 244 (a) (1).

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, whom MR' JUSTICE CLARK joins, In his would dismis's the writ for lack of jurisdiction.

.270 ..

Per Curiam.

view the record fails to disclose a justiciable case or con- troversy because

(1) the undisturbed administrative

finding that petitioner "does not meet the requirement trat his deportation [would] r6sult in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to himself," establishes that petitioner is not entitled to suspension 'of deportation' under either subdivision (a) (1) or (a)-(5) of, 244 of the ]mmigration and Nationality Act of 1952; and (2) the parties' stipulation in the District Court is ineffective*to confer jurisdiction on this Court to decide the question sought to be preseflted. See Swift & Co.-v. Hocking Val- ley R. Co., 243 U. S. 281, '289; Aetna Life, Ins. Co..v, Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241.

In holding on.thig. record that subdivision (a)(1) governs petitioner's oas he Court has, in his view, rendered what ii effect is an' advisory opinion.

MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER would join MR. JusTICE HARLAN if he read the record to be as clear as the latter finds it to be. Being in sufficient doubt about the scope and meaning of the stipulation, he joins the Court's opinion. This leaves open, on the remand, the adminis- trative determination of the issues under §244 (a)(1).