At the original hearing. the respondent testified that her husband is the general secretary of the Communist Party of the United States and that she assisted him as a secretary and by doing research for his writings and speeches. The original record was at best sketchy as to the respondents beliefs concerning the tenets of the Communist Party. The authority to authorize suspension of deportation or to grant voluntary departure under section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917 is limited by section 19 (d) which so far as pertinent to the consideration of this case prohibits the grant of either relief to aliens subject to deportation under the act of October 16. 1918. as amended. This act provides for the deportation. among other groups. of aliens who believe in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of the United States or who have been members of or affiliated with any organization that believes in or advocates such overthrow. Iri the consideration of the case in 1940. although not concluding that the respondent was deportable under the 1918 act. Attorney General Jackson held he could not make an affirmative finding that she was not because of a failure on her part to disclose fully her. political beliefs made necessary because she was the wife of an outstanding member of. the Communist Party of the United States. Earl Browder. The Attorney General further held that the record as then constituted did not justify granting the relief requested. He pointed out. however. if the respondent desired to come forward and produce evidence to dissipate the doubts induced by the record. she might at any time prior to deportation move to reopen the hearing. The recent hearing accorded the respondent was to enable her to "dissipate the doubts" induced by the original hearing. At this hearing she answered all questions propounded to her.
Keywords matched
Immigration deportable deportation