Bechard v. Ebey
| Decision Date | 29 May 1924 |
| Docket Number | 3371. |
| Citation | 300 F. 558 |
| Parties | BECHARD v. EBEY, Inspector of Immigration. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Harold O. Mulks, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
John Elliott Byrne, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, EVANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
The only question here is as to whether appellant can be deported upon no other evidence than his own statements, made under oath while under arrest, charged with violating the Immigration Act.
As required by the rules of the Department of Labor, appellant, during the hearing, was permitted to inspect the warrant, and was advised that he was entitled to be represented by counsel. He elected to proceed without counsel, and was sworn and testified without objection, and the record shows he had a fair hearing.
Deportation proceedings are civil, and not criminal, and under numerous authorities the question will have to be answered in the affirmative. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44 Sup.Ct. 54, 68 L.Ed. . . .; Low Foon Yin v. U.S. Imm. Com'r, 145 F. 791, 76 C.C.A. 355; U.S. v. Brooks (D.C.) 284 F. 908; In re Chan Foo Lin, 243 F. 137, 156 C.C.A. 3; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 44 Sup.Ct. 283, 68 L.Ed. . . ., opinion filed February 18, 1924.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Cartellone
...would be conclusive. It would certainly be substantial evidence sufficient alone to base an order of deportation thereon. Bechard v. Ebey, 7 Cir., 300 F. 558. The immigration authorities did not learn of any claimed mistake until more than five years later, to-wit: at the hearing of March 1......
- Matthews v. United States