Ex parte Shigenari Mayemura
| Decision Date | 09 November 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6503.,6503. |
| Citation | 53 F.2d 621 |
| Parties | Ex parte SHIGENARI MAYEMURA. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Milo E. Rowell, both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry B. Blee, U. S. Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and ST. SURE, District Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the District Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding appellant to the immigration authorities for deportation. The facts of the case are similar to those in Ex parte Seisuke Fukumoto (C. C. A.) 53 F. (2d) 618, decided this day, and the authorities cited therein affirming the judgment apply with equal force here.
Appellant is a native and subject of Japan. He was arrested, and after a hearing was ordered deported by the Secretary of Labor upon the grounds: That he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924, in that, at the time of his entry, he was not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa; that he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, in that he is an alien ineligible to citizenship and is not exempted by paragraph (c), section 13, thereof 8 US CA § 213(c); that he is in the United States in violation of the Act of February 5, 1917 (§ 19 8 USCA § 155), in that he entered by land at a place other than a designated port of entry for aliens; that he entered in violation of rule 7 of the Immigration Rules of July 1, 1927.
Immigration Inspectors Bliss and Wolin placed two Japanese aliens on board a ship at San Pedro, Cal., for deportation to Japan. Appellant was among the visitors on board. Inspector Bliss had in his possession a number of immigration service descriptive lists (Form 400), one of which contained a description and a photograph of a Japanese who had recently landed at San Francisco and passed through the United States in transit to Mexico. The inspector was of the opinion that appellant bore a resemblance to the photograph and description appearing on the list, which also contained the name of Shigemori Maemura, and held appellant for investigation. The inspector sought a statement from appellant concerning his entry into the United States, but appellant refused to talk until he had an opportunity to consult an attorney. Appellant was arrested and released on bond pending hearing.
The formal hearing began on December 5, 1929, when defendant was represented by counsel. There was introduced in evidence the immigration transit descriptive list (Exhibit B in the record), showing that a Japanese named Shigemori Maemura had landed at San Francisco, Cal., on April 27, 1928, and had departed from the United States in transit to Mexico on April 30, 1928. The government also introduced in evidence a photograph of the appellant taken on December 5, 1929 (Exhibit C). A continuance was had until December 10, 1929, when the hearing was resumed. Appellant testified that he first entered the United States in the middle of June, 1923, from Mexicali, Mexico, by train; that he was not inspected by immigration officers at that time; that he had a Japanese passport at the time, but since threw it away; that he entered through Mexicali into El Centro, Cal.; that he had his wife with him; that he came from Japan on the Mexico Maru, a steamship of a South American line, in the middle of August, 1922, and landed at the port of Buenos Aires, South America; that he remained in South America four months; that he has a wife named Taruko, and a 2 year old daughter, but does not know where either of them is.
The main question before the Board of Review was as to the identity of appellant, and the only question before this court now is whether appellant had a fair hearing.
If appellant's statement that he first entered United States in June, 1923, and has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoeps v. Carmichael
...160 F.2d 92, 94; Nicoli v. Briggs, 10 Cir., 1936, 83 F.2d 375, 377; Kjar v. Doak, 7 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 566, 567; Ex parte Shigenari Mayemura, 9 Cir., 1931, 53 F.2d 621, 622; Ghiggeri v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1927, 19 F.2d 875, 876. 7 United States ex rel. Vajtauer, supra, note 6; United States ex......
-
Hyun v. Landon
...v. Berkshire, 9 Cir., 1935, 76 F.2d 204; Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9 Cir., 1938, 96 F.2d 969, 971; Ex parte Shigenari Mayemura, 9 Cir., 1931, 53 F. 2d 621. This rule is followed by the Supreme Court, N. L. R. B. v. Donnelly Garment Co., 1947, 330 U.S. 219, 67 S.Ct. 756, 91 ......
-
Ex parte Bridges, 1836.
...the order made. The admission of hearsay evidence does not of itself operate to render unfair the entire hearing. Ex parte Shigenari Mayemura, 9 Cir., 53 F.2d 621. "Moreover, a hearing granted does not cease to be fair, merely because rules of evidence and of procedure applicable in judicia......
-
United States v. Hughes
...820. It is also well established that in such proceedings strict rules of evidence do not apply. Ex parte Singh, supra; Ex parte Shigenari Mayemura, 9 Cir., 53 F.2d 621; Kunimori Ohara v. Berkshire, 9 Cir., 76 F.2d 204. But bare statements made by the Mayor of Turriaco that Rak was in Turri......