Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy

PETITIONER: Gastelum-Quinones
RESPONDENT: Kennedy
LOCATION: Clauson's Inn

DOCKET NO.: 39
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1962-1965)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

CITATION: 374 US 469 (1963)
ARGUED: Mar 19, 1963
DECIDED: Jun 17, 1963

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 19, 1963 in Gastelum-Quinones v. Kennedy

Earl Warren:

Number 39, Jose Maria Gastelum-Quinones versus Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General.

Mr. Rein.

David Rein:

May it please the Court.

This case is here challenging the validity of the deportation order entered against the petitioner.

The petitioner is a Mexican National who has resided in the United States since he entered in this country in 1920 at the age of 10.

He is married and supports his wife who resides in this country.

He has two American born children and eight American born grandchildren who also live in this country.

Although not a citizen of the United States, he has lived here since the age of 10 and his roots are definitely in this country and not in Mexico.

He was ordered deported on a finding that he had been a member of the Communist Party in 1949 and 1950, and hence was deportable under the provisions of Section 241 (a) (6) (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Arthur J. Goldberg:

[Inaudible]

David Rein:

I don't believe it does.

Arthur J. Goldberg:

[Inaudible]

David Rein:

Yes, he sells tortillas in the Los Angeles area.

He comes from Los Angeles.

Earl Warren:

He sells what?

David Rein:

Tortillas.

Earl Warren:

Tortillas.

Potter Stewart:

He was never a naturalized citizen?

David Rein:

No.

Potter Stewart:

This was not preceded by the nationalization rule?

David Rein:

No, he's never gone through the process of naturalization.

Potter Stewart:

Right.

David Rein:

This Section of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for deportation for past membership in the Communist Party.

And the chief issue in this case is whether or not that finding can be -- that holding can be supported on the basis of the findings made by the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case.

The findings upon which the order of deportation rests were set forth and summarized by the BIA and that's quoted in our brief at page 5 to 6, these are the essential findings.

According to the BIA, membership in the Communist Party was found to have been established on the testimony of Government witness, Scarletto, who testified that he had collected Communist Party dues from the respondent and had attended close meetings of the Communist Party with him, and the general corroboration offered by the testimony of Government witness, Elorriaga.

There were no findings beyond this as to the nature of petitioner's membership.

There were no findings that the petitioner had ever engaged in any Party activity of any kind, or that he had ever said anything at any party meetings.

Simply, there's bare finding that he had attended some meetings and had paid dues.

The Board of Immigration Appeals nevertheless held that on these findings, that petitioner was deportable within the requirements of this Court's decision in Rowoldt and I digress for a moment, this Court held in the Rowoldt case, that aliens who were only nominal members of the Party were not deportable and that it was necessary to establish deportability to show a “meaningful association” with the Party.