In re Ng Wah Chung

• Decision Date: 05 January 1915
• Docket Number: 2102.
• Citation: 220 F. 639
• Parties: In re NG WAH CHUNG. v. PRENTIS, Immigrant Inspector. NG WAH CHUNG
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

220 F. 639

In re NG WAH CHUNG.

NG WAH CHUNG v. PRENTIS, Immigrant Inspector.

No. 2102.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

January 5, 1915

What Chinese persons are excluded from the United States, see note to Wong You v. United States, 104 C.C.A. 538.)

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois; George A Carpenter, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Ng Wah Chung against Percy L. Prentis Immigration Inspector in charge at Chicago. Petition dismissed, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

Wm. R Medaris, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

John E. Byrne, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.

Before BAKER, SEAMAN, and KOHLSAAT, Circuit Judges.

BAKER Circuit Judge.

Appellant, a person of Chinese descent, appeals from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding him to the custody of the immigrant inspector.

The basis of the petition for the writ was that petitioner was arrested and tried on a warrant charging that he was an alien likely to become a public charge, while the deportation warrant found that charge to be true and also another, namely, that petitioner was unlawfully in this country because of having entered without inspection, regarding which latter charge petitioner was given no notice before trial and no opportunity to defend.

Deportation would be sustained, if petitioner had a fair hearing upon the charge in the warrant of arrest. Appellant challenges the fairness of the hearing on that issue; but we refrain from entering upon that branch of the case, because we find from the record that petitioner and his counsel had notice that the hearing before the immigration officer would include both charges.

The petition and the answer joined issue on this question of notice, and the evidence presented to the court was all embodied in a written stipulation.

It was stipulated, among other things, that:

'A formal hearing under the rules of the Department of Labor was accorded petitioner, at which the following proceedings were had:

'Mr. Eby: Mr. Kan, advise the alien of the nature of the charges against him.

'Mr. Medaris: Let me see the warrant. (Whereupon Mr. Eby exhibited formal warrant containing one charge, as above set forth.)

'Mr. Kan.spoke to petitioner in the Chinese language, and Mr. Kan.says he advised petitioner he was being given a hearing on the charge of being unlawfully within the United States, because a person likely to become a public charge, and because he entered without inspection.'

Mr. Eby was the examining inspector, Mr. Kan.the official interpreter, and Mr. Medaris the counsel of petitioner. There was no stipulation of fact, and no testimony to the effect, that petitioner did not understand that the witnesses about to be examined would testify concerning both charges. At the habeas corpus trial the court could make no other finding than that petitioner had notice. Formal pleadings at hearings of aliens before examining inspectors are neither required nor contemplated. Rule 22 of the Department of Labor, promulgated under authority of the statute, provided:

'If during the hearing new facts are proved, which constitute a reason, in addition to those stated in the warrant of arrest, why the alien is in the country in violation of the law, the alien's attention should be directed to such facts and reason, and he should be given an opportunity to show why he should not be deported therefor.'

Hence if the only question concerning...