Hampton v. Wong Ging
| Decision Date | 09 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4189,4190. |
| Parties | HAMPTON, Acting Inspector of Immigration Service, v. WONG GING. SAME v. WONG DICK. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Two identical cases are here presented. The appellees respectively 78 and 76 years of age, who have resided in the United States more than 40 years, were each found guilty of having opium in his possession, and each was sentenced to 90 days in the county jail. In each case the trial court made under the provisions of section 19 of the Act of February 5 1917 (39 Stat. 874 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp 1919, Sec. 4289 1/4jj)), a recommendation to the Secretary of Labor that the alien should not be deported. Notwithstanding the recommendation, deportation proceedings were instituted. Thereupon the appellees filed their petitions in the court below for habeas corpus, alleging that they were illegally imprisoned and restrained of their liberty by the acting inspector of immigration. Upon the hearing on the writ it was ordered that the appellees be discharged from custody. From that order the present appeals are taken.
Frank R. Jeffrey, U.S. Atty., and H. Sylvester Garvin, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of Spokane, Wash., for appellant.
E. O. Connor, of Spokane, Wash., for appellees.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.
GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
Upon behalf of the appellant it is contended that the Act of February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4289 1/4a et seq.), under which the court's order was made, recommending that the appellees be not deported, is not applicable to a conviction had upon the Act of May 26, 1922 (42 Stat. 596 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, Sec. 8800 et seq.)), and it is contended further that in any event the offense of which the appellees were charged did not involve moral turpitude, within the purview of the Act of February 5, 1917. We think there can be no doubt that the later act, which provides that an alien convicted thereunder shall be taken into custody and deported 'in accordance with the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the Act of February 5, 1917,' adopts the whole of the provisions relative to deportation contained in those sections, and that the present cases are controlled by section 19.
Whether or not the offense of which the appellees were convicted involved moral turpitude is not disclosed by the record. It informs us...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. De George
...unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor' was deportable as having committed a crime involving 'moral turpitude.' While in Hampton v. Wong Ging, 9 Cir., 299 F. 289, 290, it held (with the same two judges sitting in both cases) that a conviction under the Narcotic Act was not of itself a crime o......
-
In re Khourn
...of an alien convicted of a narcotics offense is subject to judicial recommendation against deportation); Hampton v. Wong Ging, 299 F. 289, 290 (9th Cir. 1924) (holding that sections 19 and 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917 authorized recommendations against deportation for an alien convicte......
-
In re Khourn, Interim Decision #3330
...of an alien convicted of a narcotics offense is subject to judicial recommendation against deportation); Hampton v. Wong Ging, 299 F. 289, 290 (9th Cir. 1924) (holding that sections 19 and 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917 authorized recommendations against deportation for an alien convicte......
-
Lamento v. United States
...67 L. Ed. 105; Johnson v. United States (C. C. A.) 294 F. 753, 754; Lewis v. United States (C. C. A.) 295 F. 678, 679; Hampton v. Wong Ging (C. C. A.) 299 F. 289, 290; Di Salvo v. United States (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) Turning to section 1 (Comp. St. § 6287g), we find that, if the defendant was ......