Ex parte Wong So Wan, 28214.
| Decision Date | 29 October 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 28214.,28214. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Ex parte WONG SO WAN et al. |
Clarence H. Desky and John S. Howell, both of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners.
Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and Edgar R. Bonsall, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal., for the Government.
Petitioners sought to enter the United States as children of an American citizen. They were detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. They were preliminarily examined and then a Board of Special Inquiry, after hearing, ordered their exclusion on the ground that they had not established their lineage and otherwise were not eligible for entry as aliens. Both the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
Now submitted to me is their petition for the writ of habeas corpus. It is claimed that the Administrative Procedure Act of June 11, 1946, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., applies to immigration procedures. I am convinced that it does not. 5 U.S.C.A. 1006(a); United States ex rel. Lindenau v. Watkins, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 216; In re United States ex rel. Obum, D.C.S.D. N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 36; Wong Yang Sung v. Clark, D.C.D.C:, 80 F.Supp. 235. Certainly it does not apply to preliminary examinations. 8 U.S.C.A. § 152; Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 607.
But whether it applies or not, the record shows that the petitioners were accorded due process and that the decision of the Immigration authorities has a substantial basis.
The order to show cause is discharged and the petition is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- United States v. Selph
-
Yanish v. Wixon, 28347.
...746, 748. 2 Wong Yan Sung v. Clark, D.C., 80 F. Supp. 235; United States ex rel. Obum, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 36; Ex parte Wong So Wan, D.C.N.D.Cal., 82 F.Supp. 60. Cf. Leo Tack v. Clark, D.C.S.D.N.Y. 26279.3 Cf. Azzollini v. Watkins, D.C. S.D.N.Y., 81 F.Supp. 3 (No opinion for publicat......
-
United States v. Savoretti, Civ. No. 6705-M
...held that no court can interfere with their action in behalf of an alien outside the gate. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, supra; Ex parte Wong So Wan, D.C., 82 F.Supp. 60; United States ex rel. Nicoloff v. Shaughnessy, D.C., 139 F.Supp. If, however, an alien gains lawful admission, then under the p......