In re Madeiros
| Decision Date | 03 August 1914 |
| Docket Number | 1009. |
| Citation | 225 F. 90 |
| Parties | In re MADEIROS. v. BILLINGS. LEWIS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
William H. Lewis, of Boston, Mass., for petitioner.
Leo A Rogers, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., for respondent.
This case was heard upon the evidence contained in the record of the Immigration Department and the additional facts that Mr Lewis, counsel for the applicant, was in attendance at the place of the hearing on March 16, 1914, requested leave to participate therein, and was not allowed to be present at the hearing or to take part therein, and upon the further agreement of parties that all proceedings in the immigration record, those subsequent to the filing of this petition as well as those prior to it, are to be considered upon the questions here involved.
No one of the three medical certificates which appear in the record states explicitly and categorically that the applicant is afflicted with a defect which may impair his ability to earn a living. In re Felix Petkos, 214 F. 978, 131 C.C.A 274, June 24, 1914. But I think that, fairly construed, that is what Dr. Grubb's certificate, and Dr. Safford's letter or certificate, dated February 7, 1914, mean. In proceedings of this character, in which substance rather than form, and essential justice rather than technicalities, are to be regarded, I do not think it can properly be held that the certificates were so defective that action based upon them was illegal and void.
The other substantial contention urged against the action of the department is that counsel for the applicant was excluded from the hearing of March 16, 1914. It is, so far as my observation or knowledge goes, the uniform practice of all tribunals in Massachusetts to allow parties to proceedings before them to be represented by counsel. The precedent relied on by the board for not permitting applicant's counsel to be present, viz., having therefore excluded a person who desired to be present, 'not as a representative of the alien being heard, merely as a matter of curiosity,' does not seem to me to cover the case here presented. U.S. Commissioner's letter of March 27, 1914. Counsel for a party are not 'the public,' as that word is used in section 25 of the Immigration Act (Act Feb 20, 1907, c. 1134 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4274)). The rules of the department explicitly provide for the appearance of attorneys 'in behalf of detained aliens. Assuming, however, fees in such cases. Rule 18 of Rules of Department of Commerce and Labor Relating to Admission or Expulsion of Aliens. Assuming,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Wong Yee Toon
...the Supreme Court in Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460, 32 Sup.Ct. 734, 56 L.Ed. 1165, is conclusive. To the same effect are In re Madeiros (D.C.) 225 F. 90; United States v. Moy Toom (D.C.) 224 F. United States v. Lem You (D.C.) 224 F. 519; United States ex rel. Buccino v. Williams (C.C......
-
Dengeleski v. Tillinghast, 2801.
...we see no possibility of a different result. United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 170, 24 S. Ct. 621, 48 L. Ed. 917; In re Madeiros (D. C.) 225 F. 90. The alien having been given, in compliance with paragraph 2 of rule 19 of the Department of Labor relating to warrant of arrest and he......
-
Ponzi v. Ward
...the absence of counsel did not render the hearing unfair. Dengeleski ex rel. Saccardio v. Tillinghast (C. C. A.) 65 F. (2d) 440; In re Madeiros (D. C.) 225 F. 90; United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 170, 24 S. Ct. 621, 48 L. Ed. As to the fourth objection, which relates to the suffic......