Ex parte Yee Hick Ho
| Decision Date | 24 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 20029.,20029. |
| Citation | 33 F.2d 360 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
| Parties | Ex parte YEE HICK HO. |
George A. McGowan, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
George J. Hatfield, U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for Commissioner of Immigration.
This petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed on behalf of a Chinese woman, Yee Hick Ho, by her brother, Yee Suey Gong. The petition shows that Yee Hick Ho had been denied admission to the United States by the Board of Special Inquiry on the ground that her relationship to her alleged father, a native-born citizen of the United States, had not been established, and that this decision was confirmed by the Board of Review of the Department of Labor on June 21, 1929; notice of this affirmance being transmitted by telegram to San Francisco. Petitioner, her brother, thereupon telegraphed the Department of Labor requesting one week's stay of execution, in order to permit his accompanying her to China, which request was denied, and Yee Hick Ho was then placed aboard the steamship President McKinley of the Dollar Line, sailing on that very day, June 21, 1929. The vessel sailed, and is due to arrive at Honolulu on June 27, 1929. Petitioner offers to pay the expense of returning Yee Hick Ho to this port to the Robert Dollar Steamship Company, and prays that a writ of habeas corpus issue, directed to John D. Nagle, Commissioner of Immigration for the port of San Francisco. The proposed order to show cause, submitted with the petition, also contains a direction to the agent of the Dollar Steamship Company, upon receipt of the cost of transportation and necessary cable expenses, to telegraph to Honolulu, directing that Yee Hick Ho be there transshipped for return to the port of San Francisco.
It is unnecessary to consider the grounds for relief on the merits set forth in the petition, as I am satisfied that this court is without jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case.
The District Courts of the United States have no power or authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to be sent out of their respective jurisdictions. Ex parte Gouyet (D. C.) 175 F. 230. The custody sought to be inquired into must be within the Northern District of California in this case; i. e., I must be able to find that such custody is in the Commissioner of Immigration for the port of San Francisco. In U. S. ex rel. Nazaretian v. Tod (D. C.) 291 F. 665, Judge Hand had occasion to consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahrens v. Clark
...18. 16 Ex parte Graham, Fed.Cas.No.5,657, 4 Wash.C.C. 211; In re Boles, 8 Cir., 48 F. 75; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230; Ex parte Yee Hick Ho, D.C., 33 F.2d 360; United States v. Day, 3 Cir., 50 F.2d 816 (in this case the custodian did appear in court, but only specially to challenge it......
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...of the relator did not cure the lack of jurisdiction, hence affirmed the dismissal by the District Court. See, also, Ex parte Yee Hick Ho, D.C., 33 F.2d 360; United States ex rel. Nazaretian v. Tod, D.C., 291 F. 665; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230; United States ex rel. Rubin v. Powell, ......
-
Fiedler v. Shuttleworth, 123.
...run outside the district in which it issued. In re Bickley, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1387, p. 332; Ex parte Gouyet, D.C., 175 F. 230; Ex parte Yee Hick Ho, D.C., 33 F.2d 360; United States ex rel. Harrington v. Schlotfeldt, 7 Cir., 136 F.2d 935; Hauck v. Hiatt, Warden, United States Penitentiary, et......