Malaxa to be an improper person for admission to the United States. and that he should have been excluded. He said he thought a strong case of previous improper conduct had been made before the hearing examiner. and fully justified such a holding against Malaxa. but Mr. Katzenbach advised that since the Board of Immigration Appeals. by a split decision. had reversed the hearing examiner. and Attorney General Rogers had affirmed the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. he felt it was not good public policy for one Attorney General to reverse the decision of a previous one. unless there was substantial and convincing evidence which had not been brought out in previous hearings. With this administrative policy I agree. but I have some question as to its applicability in this case. Mr.
Keywords matched
Immigration