In re Sugano, 9682.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
Citation40 F.2d 961
Decision Date15 February 1930
Docket NumberNo. 9682.,9682.
PartiesIn re SUGANO.

40 F.2d 961 (1930)


No. 9682.

District Court, S. D. California, S. D.

February 15, 1930.

J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.

Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Dist. Atty., and Gwyn S. Redwine, Asst. U. S. Dist. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for Immigration Department.

McCORMICK, District Judge.

This is a proceeding in habeas corpus directed by an alien against the Immigration Service of the government. It is contended that the detention of the alien under a warrant of deportation is illegal.

The sole question is whether or not the alien was accorded a fair hearing by the immigration authorities within the meaning of applicable law.

There are two essential prerequisites before aliens can be deported. It must satisfactorily appear from the evidence, first, that the person illegally entered into the United States and is found herein in such unlawful status, and secondly, the deportation proceedings before the immigration authorities must have been fairly conducted. Each of the aforesaid requirements is equally important, and, unless both are shown by the record of proceedings before the Immigration authorities, there has not been "due process of law" that is guaranteed to all persons by constitutional government in the United States, and in such event the judicial power of the government should prevent deportation. In speaking of the power of immigration authorities in such proceedings against aliens ineligible for American citizenship, the Supreme Court, in Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 464, 40 S. Ct. 566, 570, 64 L. Ed. 1010, said, "The acts of Congress give great power to the Secretary of Labor over Chinese immigrants and persons of Chinese descent. It is a power to be administered, not arbitrarily and secretly, but fairly and openly, under the restraints of the tradition and principles of free government applicable where the fundamental rights of men are involved, regardless of their origin or race. It is the province of the courts, in proceedings for review, within the limits amply defined in the cases cited, to prevent abuse of this extraordinary power, and this is possible only when a full record is preserved of the essentials on which the executive officers proceed to judgment." If this pregnant language is applied to the record before us, it seems clear that the petitioning alien has not been accorded that fair and open hearing that he should have received from the immigration authorities of the United States.

The Bureau file in evidence reflects a sincere but an erroneous belief by the immigration officials that deportation is justified when an alien admits or confesses to facts that show that he has unlawfully entered and in that status remains within our country. The law however, guarantees to him a fair hearing

40 F.2d 962
wherein such facts shall be established and this last requirement, in my opinion, is of equal legal importance and should be jealously safeguarded by the courts. It is only by strict observance of lawful authority by governmental officers that human rights can be safeguarded against arbitrary and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hyun v. Landon, 14058.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 7 Abril 1955
    ...was not allowed as to a witness whose testimony had been received but whose testimony was not considered as to the decision; In re Sugano, D.C.Cal.1930, 40 F. 2d 961 — The hearing was held unfair where proper cross-examination had been Failure to assert one's rights merely because to do so ......
  • Ex parte Kurth
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • 2 Octubre 1939
    ...against the aliens in the deportation. That is the difference between this case and the cases to which counsel refer. See In re Sugano, D. C.Cal.1930, 40 F.2d 961; Ex parte Eguchi, D.C.Cal.1932, 58 F.2d 417; Roux v. Commissioner, 9 Cir.1913, 203 F. 413; U. S. ex rel. Bosny v. Williams, D.C.......
  • United States v. Reid
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 13 Febrero 1953
    ...that he intended to remain permanently in the United States was incorrect. Cf. Ungar v. Seaman, 8 Cir., 1924, 4 F.2d 80; In re Sugano, D.C.Cal.1930, 40 F.2d 961. His explanation was one for consideration and finding by the Hearing Officer and also for subsequent action by the Attorney Gener......
  • Navarrette-Navarrette v. Landon, 14343.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 4 Mayo 1955
    ...was made that they could not be so produced to testify. See Gonzales v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 1930, 45 F.2d 934, 937; In re Sugano, D.C.S.D.Cal.1930, 40 F.2d 961, 963; Maltez v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1928, 27 F.2d 835, 837; Svarney v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 7 F.2d 515, 517; Whitfield v. Hanges, ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT