Kaneda v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 3692. |
| Citation | 278 F. 694 |
| Parties | KANEDA v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Thompson Cathcart & Lewis, Frank Andrade, George S. Curry, and Barry S. Ulrich, all of Honolulu, T.H., and Annette Abbott Adams of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
S. C Huber, U.S. Atty., of Honolulu, T.H., and John T. Williams U.S. Atty., and Ben F. Geis, Asst. U.S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal.
Before GILBERT, MORROW, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.
Buntaro Kaneda, the appellant, a citizen and subject of the empire of Japan, aged 22 years, arrived at the port of Honolulu, Hawaii, on the 5th day of October, 1919, as a first-class passenger on the steamship Korea Maru. He had been provided with a passport by the Japanese authorities, with which he applied for admission to the United States, stating to the board of special inquiry in the Immigration Service that he intended to investigate the conditions of Hawaii's Japanese and then report to certain newspapers in Japan; that he expected to remain in Hawaii for 8 months; that he had attended the Waseda University, Tokyo, for 2 1/2 years, but had no papers showing that he had attended such school. He also claimed to have worked as a reporter and writer on the daily paper, Niigata Asahi, in Niigata City, Japan, for one year before his departure. The applicant carried no family record, but stated that his father was dead, that his father had been a farmer, that his mother was living, that he had two brothers and one sister in Japan, and that he had no relatives in Hawaii. Later, when confronted with the records of the immigration office in Honolulu, showing the arrival in Honolulu from Japan of two Japanese persons, one in 1906 and the other in 1908, coming from the same place in Japan as appellant, and bearing the name of Kaneta, the appellant admitted that he had two brothers residing in Hawaii, and that he had lied to the board of special inquiry, because he thought it would be of no benefit to him to say that he had relatives in Hawaii, and that he was afraid he would not be admitted if he had; that he told this lie while testifying under oath to tell the truth, for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States.
Appellant was denied admission to the United States by the board of special inquiry, for the reason that he had admitted committing a crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, to wit, perjury. An appeal from this decision was taken to the Secretary of Labor. The decision was affirmed by the Assistant Secretary of Labor. The appellant thereafter petitioned the District Court of Hawaii for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging unlawful restraint, and that the hearing before the board of special inquiry was unfair and was merely the semblance of a hearing. The writ was issued, a hearing was had, and on February 16, 1920, the writ was discharged, and the appellant remanded to the custody of the United States immigration inspector. From the order and judgment of the District Court this appeal is taken.
The authority of the court to review the proceedings before the board of special inquiry and the Secretary of Labor is invoked by the appellant on the ground that the order of exclusion was not the result of a fair and impartial hearing. Alleging that appellant was within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, he claims the protection of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States against being deprived of his liberty without due process of law and against being deported on the charge of perjury. Alleging that his false statement to the board of special inquiry was not material to the investigation, he claims it was not perjury, and did not involve moral turpitude.
It is provided in section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 874, 875 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, Sec. 4289 1/4b):
'That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States: * * * Persons who have been convicted of or admit having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude.'
In section 16 of the act (section 4289 1/4i) it is provided:
'Every alien who may not appear to the examining immigrant inspector at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land shall be detained for examination in relation thereto by a board of special inquiry.'
And in section 15 (section 4289 1/4hh) it is provided that, pending such examination of an alien, he may be removed from the vessel to a designated place, 'but such temporary removal shall not be considered a landing. ' In section 17 of the act (page 887 (section 4289 1/4ii)) it is provided:
'In every case where an alien is excluded from admission into the United States, under any law or treaty now existing or hereafter made, the decision of a board of special inquiry adverse to the admission of such alien shall be final, unless reversed on appeal to the Secretary of Labor.'
In the Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U.S. 86, 97, 23 Sup.Ct. 611, 613 (47 L.Ed. 721), the Supreme Court, reviewing its previous decision relating to questions arising under acts of Congress excluding certain classes of alien immigrants, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Corrales-Vazquez
..., 878 F.3d at 882 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(a) ); see Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff , 112 F.2d 607, 608 (9th Cir. 1940) ; Kaneda v. United States , 278 F. 694, 696–97 (9th Cir. 1922).4 And as a literal matter, entering the United States without examination or inspection, regardless of where or how, cou......
-
Fiswick v. United States
...required by the Act were sworn statements. Regulations, supra note 1, § 29.4(g), (j). 7 Convictions for perjury, Kaneda v. United States, 9 Cir., 278 F. 694, for frauds on the revenues, Guarneri v. Kessler, 5 Cir., 98 F.2d 580, United States ex rel. Berlandi v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 113 F.2d 429,......
-
Klapholz v. Esperdy
...second reentry permit the admission was to perjury made in the administrative hearings on a prior attempt to enter. In Kaneda v. United States, 278 F. 694 (9th Cir., 1922) an admission of perjury during an exclusion hearing was held to be grounds for exclusion. Concededly, those cases did n......
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...chapter 190, § 4(a), 43 Stat. 155. 2 Ex parte Chin Chan On, D.C., 32 F. 2d 828; Masaichi Ono v. Carr, 9 Cir., 56 F.2d 772; Kaneda v. United States, 9 Cir., 278 F. 694; United States ex rel. Majka v. Palmer, 7 Cir., 67 F.2d 146; and United States ex rel. Karpay v. Uhl, 2 Cir., 70 F.2d 2 8 U.......