Kishan Singh v. District Director of Immigration

Decision Date20 April 1936
Docket NumberNo. 8078.,8078.
Citation83 F.2d 95
PartiesKISHAN SINGH v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Marshall B. Woodworth, of San Francisco, Cal. (S. Luke Howe, of Sacramento, Cal., of counsel), for appellant.

H. H. McPike, U. S. Atty., and Robert L. McWilliams, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of San Francisco, Cal. (Arthur J. Phelan, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, of San Francisco, Cal., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

This appeal is from an order of the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is held on a warrant of the Secretary of Labor directing his deportation to India under the Immigration Act of 1924 approved May 26, 1924 and effective July 1, 1924 (chapter 190, § 14, 43 Stat. 162, 8 U.S. C.A. § 214).

Appellant arrived at San Francisco February 23, 1924 on the steamship President Lincoln in transit to Mexico. He claims that he re-entered the United States from Mexico in April, 1924, and that having re-entered prior to the effective date of the Immigration Act of 1924 authorizing his deportation, the action of the immigration authorities is erroneous. Appellant predicates his claim of error upon the admission in evidence of six affidavits from six persons in Mexico all stating that petitioner was in Mexico after the 1st of July, 1924. That these affidavits were admissible in such a proceeding is well settled. Wong Back Sue v. Connell (C.C.A.) 233 F. 659, 664; United States v. Uhl (C.C.A.) 266 F. 34, 39; Ghiggeri v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 19 F.(2d) 875; Imazo Itow v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 24 F.(2d) 526; Ng Kai Ben v. Weedin (C.C.A.) 44 F. (2d) 315. The appellant claims that he was denied the opportunity of cross-examination, and that by reason of this denial and refusal to reopen the case for admission of further evidence he was denied due process of law.

We are not required in this case to pass upon the abstract question of whether or not the introduction of ex parte affidavits and the refusal to permit cross-examination or to furnish an opportunity therefor is erroneous, as has been held in a number of cases under the particular circumstances there involved Maltez v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 27 F.(2d) 835; Svarney v. United States (C.C.A.) 7 F.(2d) 515, for the reason that in the case at bar an opportunity was offered to the defendant on February 15, 1935, to cross-examine these witnesses at Calexico, Cal., before the matter was submitted for decision although it had been under consideration by the immigration authorities for about six months during which period a number of hearings had been had. Calexico, Cal., is on the Mexican border and within a few miles of the places in Mexico where the witnesses had testified by affidavit that the appellant had worked and had been seen at various times between July 1, 1924, and to and during a part of 1932. In response to this offer to appellant to permit him to cross-examine affiants, the appellant's attorney, at the adjourned hearing on March 11, 1935, at San...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hyun v. Landon
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 7, 1955
    ...denial of the right of cross-examination." See also Channan Singh v. Haff, 9 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 303; and Kishan Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9 Cir., 1936, 83 F.2d 95. See, too, Berkman v. Tillinghast, 1 Cir., 1932, 58 F.2d 621, 622; Hale v. Henkel, 1906, 201 U.S. 43, 26 S.Ct......
  • Bhagat Singh v. McGrath
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 10, 1939
    ...the witnesses, or to send an attorney there, is not a denial of the right of cross-examination. Kishan Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 95, 96. See also Channan Singh v. Haff, 9 Cir., 103 F.2d 304, decided April 18, 1939. Neither is the obstinacy of the alien denia......
  • Singh v. District Director of Immigration
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 18, 1938
    ...deprived of this right. Assuming without deciding that he had the right to the cross examination claimed (see Kishan Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 95) we do not find this right was denied appellant. The presiding officer at the hearing stated that these police o......
  • Channan Singh v. Haff, 9013.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 22, 1939
    ...United States courts with the execution of the order. The law appertaining is fully set out and discussed in Kishan Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9 Cir., 83 F.2d 95, certiorari denied 299 U.S. 561, 57 S.Ct. 23, 81 L.Ed. 413; Naranjan Singh v. District Director of Immigration, 9......

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