Kabadian v. Doak, 5721-5724
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | MARTIN, Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices |
| Citation | 65 F.2d 202,62 App. DC 114 |
| Parties | KABADIAN v. DOAK, Secretary of Labor, and five other cases. |
| Docket Number | 5786.,No. 5721-5724,5779,5721-5724 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1933 |
62 App. DC 114, 65 F.2d 202 (1933)
KABADIAN
v.
DOAK, Secretary of Labor, and five other cases.
Nos. 5721-5724, 5779, 5786.
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
Argued February 7, 1933.
Decided April 17, 1933.
Rehearing Denied May 5, 1933.
Raymond M. Hudson, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
Leo A. Rover and J. J. Wilson, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
HITZ, Associate Justice.
These are appeals from judgments of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sustaining demurrers to petitions for writs of prohibition to prevent the Secretary of Labor from deporting the appellants, and dismissing the petitions.
The cases, in their essentials, being alike, and having been heard together, will be disposed of in one opinion.
The allegations of the petitions are substantially as follows:
Haroutian Kabadian, alias Harry Kabedian, appellant in No. 5721, alleges that he is a subject of Turkey, 24 years old; that he entered the United States at Detroit on April 27, 1926, from Canada, as a student; that he cannot return to Turkey; and that he is a "man without a country"; that there is no treaty between the United States and Turkey at this time and no passport can be obtained by this government for his return; that no bond was required of him on entering the United States; that he knew he had no parents and only $500, with two sisters and a half-brother to depend upon for living and schooling; that on or about August 26, 1930, the appellee, through his agents, illegally arrested or detained him and forced him to give testimony, doing the same thing again on or about January 12, 1931, before the issuance of any warrant for his arrest; that on January 27, 1931, the appellee issued a warrant for his arrest for deportation, and that, at the hearing held on said warrant, the appellee, through his agents, used said testimony against him, over his objection; that on May 5, 1931, appellee issued a warrant to deport him, charging "that he remained in the United States after failing to maintain the exempt status of a student, under which he was admitted"; that said testimony was not substantial and did not support the charge made against him; that in the whole proceedings the appellee exceeded his jurisdiction and acted beyond his authority, in that the appellee is unlawfully interfering with the person, rights, and liberties of petitioner, in excess of his authority in deportation cases.
The appellant Mohamed Abraham, alias Abie Mohamed, alleges that he is a British subject and native of East India, 30 years old; that he lawfully entered the United States at New York, on November 15, 1917, and has not left the United States since that date; that during all the time he has been here he has been working steadily, and for the larger part of the last 8 years he has worked for the Ford Motor Company and has assurances of permanent employment with that company; that appellee, on or about July 7, 1929, issued a warrant against him in excess of his jurisdiction and is now proceeding to deport him, the charge in said warrant being: "That he has been found in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, to wit: That he has been convicted and imprisoned for a violation of section 4 of said act"; that said charge does not state a deportable offense within appellee's jurisdiction, as it does not state that such conviction was within 5 years of the last entry or that there were two convictions, nor does it allege that he was ever both fined and imprisoned, which is the only punishment provided under section 4 (8 USCA § 138); that he has never been fined and imprisoned and there is no evidence that he has; that no criminal charge was ever preferred against him prior to April 2, 1928; that the testimony of the appellee was not sufficient to establish the charge, as made, but it did establish that petitioner had not been convicted and both fined and imprisoned under section 4 of the act of February 5, 1917 (8 USCA § 138); that the appellee is exceeding his jurisdiction in deportation matters, and is unlawfully interfering with the liberty of petitioner by such excess of jurisdiction.
The appellant Ruwin Kowal alleges that he was born June 28, 1909, in the Province of Minsh, Russia; that he is a citizen of Russia, a Jew, and a salesman, speaking four languages; that he landed in Canada April 7, 1928, and shortly afterward came into the United States at Detroit, and was back and
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. Girard, 6198
...Alexander v. Crollott, 199 U.S. 580, 26 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed. 317." (Poliszek v. Doak, 57 F.2d 430, 61 App. D.C. 64.) In Kabadian v. Doak, 65 F.2d 202, 62 App. D.C. 114, the court says: "In Bedford v. Wingfield, 68 Va. 329, 27 Gratt. 329, the Supreme Court of Virginia said that the writ of pr......
-
Dorsey v. Gill, 8811.
...22, 36 L.Ed. 896; Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142, 7 Ann.Cas. 1018; Kabadian v. Doak, 62 App.D.C. 114, 117, 65 F.2d 202, 205, certiorari denied, Kowal v. Perkins, 290 U.S. 661, 54 S.Ct. 76, 78 L.Ed. 572; Goldsmith v. Valentine, 36 App.D.C. 63, 66; Brown v. Joh......
-
Heikkila v. Barber, 426
...2103. 2. Fafalios v. Doak, 60 App.D.C. 215, 50 F.2d 640; Poliszek v. Doak, 61 App.D.C. 64, 57 F.2d 430; Kabadian v. Doak, 62 App.D.C. 114, 65 F.2d 202; Darabi v. Northrup, 6 Cir., 54 F.2d 70. See also Impiriale v. Perkins, 62 App.D.C. 279, 66 F.2d 805; Azzollini v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d......
-
Kristensen v. McGrath, 10044.
...Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892, 142 U.S. 651, 660, 12 S.Ct. 336, 338, 35 L.Ed. 1146, 1149; Kabadian v. Doak, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 114, 65 F.2d 202; Poliszek v. Doak, 1932, 61 App.D.C. 64, 57 F.2d 430; Fafalios v. Doak, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 215, 50 F.2d 2 The finality of the decision would ......
-
Taylor v. Girard, 6198
...Alexander v. Crollott, 199 U.S. 580, 26 S.Ct. 161, 50 L.Ed. 317." (Poliszek v. Doak, 57 F.2d 430, 61 App. D.C. 64.) In Kabadian v. Doak, 65 F.2d 202, 62 App. D.C. 114, the court says: "In Bedford v. Wingfield, 68 Va. 329, 27 Gratt. 329, the Supreme Court of Virginia said that the writ of pr......
-
Dorsey v. Gill, 8811.
...22, 36 L.Ed. 896; Fisher v. Baker, 203 U.S. 174, 181, 27 S.Ct. 135, 51 L.Ed. 142, 7 Ann.Cas. 1018; Kabadian v. Doak, 62 App.D.C. 114, 117, 65 F.2d 202, 205, certiorari denied, Kowal v. Perkins, 290 U.S. 661, 54 S.Ct. 76, 78 L.Ed. 572; Goldsmith v. Valentine, 36 App.D.C. 63, 66; Brown v. Joh......
-
Heikkila v. Barber, 426
...2103. 2. Fafalios v. Doak, 60 App.D.C. 215, 50 F.2d 640; Poliszek v. Doak, 61 App.D.C. 64, 57 F.2d 430; Kabadian v. Doak, 62 App.D.C. 114, 65 F.2d 202; Darabi v. Northrup, 6 Cir., 54 F.2d 70. See also Impiriale v. Perkins, 62 App.D.C. 279, 66 F.2d 805; Azzollini v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d......
-
Kristensen v. McGrath, 10044.
...Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 1892, 142 U.S. 651, 660, 12 S.Ct. 336, 338, 35 L.Ed. 1146, 1149; Kabadian v. Doak, 1933, 62 App.D.C. 114, 65 F.2d 202; Poliszek v. Doak, 1932, 61 App.D.C. 64, 57 F.2d 430; Fafalios v. Doak, 1931, 60 App.D.C. 215, 50 F.2d 2 The finality of the decision would ......