¶1*636Mr. J. J. Kilimnik, of the bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., pro hac vice, by special leave of Court, with whom Mr. Lawrence Potamkin, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.
¶2Mr. John W. Kern, III, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Edward 0. Fennell, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Donald E. Bilger, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
¶3Before PRETTYMAN, WILBUR K. MILLER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.
¶5The facts of this case are substantially the same as those in Medeiros v. Brownell, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 396, 240 F.2d 634, decided this date. In Coelho’s deportation hearing, in addition to a warrant of arrest, an Immigration Service Form 257 (record of arrival) and a sworn statement, there was introduced into evidence an application by appellant for an extension of his temporary stay as a business visitor, and a subsequent letter by applicant requesting permission to leave the country voluntarily prior to the commencement of a deportation hearing.
¶6These two documents, in possession of the Immigration Service before appellant undertook to challenge the deportation order, contain every element necessary to sustain his deportability without resort to appellant’s testimony at the deportation hearing or to challenged documents received in evidence at the hearing.
¶7On this record Coelho’s deportability is plainly authorized by the statutes. See Bilokumsky v. Tod, 1923, 263 U.S. 149, 44 S.Ct. 54, 68 L.Ed. 221, and Tsimounis v. Holland, 3 Cir., 1956, 228 F.2d 907.
¶8The order of the district court is therefore
¶9Affirmed.