Nat Yanish v. Bruce G. Barber, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service

This case concerns a further chapter growing out of the deportation proceedings against Yanish. The question presented is whether the district court, having found appellee Barber, in “technical” contempt of the order of that court, erred in refusing to impose any sanction upon appellee or to award any reparation to appellant Yanish.

The factual background of the case is set forth at length in Yanish v. Barber, 9 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 467 , a previous appeal in this same case.

Yanish, an alien, was arrested in 1946 on a warrant charging him with being in the United States in violation of the Act of October 16, 1918, as amended, 8 U.S.C.A. § 137 , * in that since entry he was a member of an organization tnat advises, advocates, or teaches the overthrow, by force or violence, of the government of the United States. He was released on bond in the sum of $500.00 under the then effective statute, 8 U.S.C., § 156 .

In 1949 he was advised by the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he would be required to post a bond in the sum of $5,000, containing provisions requiring frequent reports at stated intervals to an officer of the Service. Yanish then brought the action from which…

(dissenting).

I am entirely satisfied that Yanish’s bondsmen, by the terms of his existing bond, were obliged to surrender him if and when he was finally determined to be unlawfully within the United States, and this regardless of whether or not there was any statutory requirement that he then be taken into custody. In short, I agree that as a matter of law he was not entitled to be indemnified on account of his imprisonment following March 16, 1953 (when his deportability was finally determined), or on account of expenses incident to that imprisonment.

But Barber’s demand for a new bond, or in lieu thereof Yanish’s surrendering himself, was made on March 6, 1953, prior to the final determination of deportability. Our opinion on the former appeal, Yanish v. Barber, 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 467 , stands for the proposition that that demand or requirement constituted a contempt of Judge Lemmon’s injunction. We did not characterize Barber’s disregard of that injunction as a “technical contempt,” whatever that phrase means. We held, 211 F.2d 470 , that altogether apart from the effect of the savings clause “the appropriate procedure for appellee to pursue as a public officer would have been…

232 F.2d 939 Nat YANISH, Appellant, v. Bruce G. BARBER, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellee. No. 14518. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 2, 1956. 1 Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard & Sibbett, Norman Leonard, Dreyfus & McTernan, Francis J. McTernan, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. 2 Lloyd H. Burke, U.S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. 3 Before HEALY and FEE, Circuit Judges, and JAMES M. CARTER, District judge. 4 JAMES M. CARTER, District Judge. 5 This case concerns a further chapter growing out of the deportation proceedings against Yanish. The question presented is whether the district court, having found appellee Barber, in 'technical' contempt of the order of that court, erred in refusing to impose any sanction upon appellee or to award any reparation to appellant Yanish. 6 The factual background of the case is set forth at length in Yanish v. Barber, 9 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 467 , a previous appeal in this same case. 7 Yanish, an alien, was arrested in 1946 on a warrant charging him with being in the United States in violation of the Act of October 16, 1918, as…