Sumio Madokoro v. Del Guercio

Citation160 F.2d 164
Decision Date04 April 1947
Docket NumberNo. 11260.,11260.
PartiesSUMIO MADOKORO v. DEL GUERCIO, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

James M. Carter, U. S. Atty., Ronald Walker and Robert E. Wright, Asst. U. S. Attys., and Bruce G. Barber, Chief, Adjudication Div., Immigration and Naturalization Service, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and Edgar Bonsall, Asst. U. S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before DENMAN, HEALY, and ORR, Circuit Judges.

DENMAN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to release appellant Sannosuke Madokoro from the custody of the Immigration officials. Appellee is holding the custody of appellant after he had been tried before the Immigration Inspectors on charges contained in a warrant, as follows:

"That he is in the United States in violation of the Immigration Act of 1924 in that at the time of his entry he was not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa; and in that he is an alien ineligible to citizenship and not exempted by Paragraph (c) Section 13, thereof."

Appellant admits that he is a citizen of Japan, an alien ineligible to citizenship, who entered the United States in 1916 as an alien seaman for the brief period then permitted, and that he violated that Act in remaining in the United States beyond the time allowed. He had remained in the United States to the date of the service of the warrant in 1942, with the exception of certain temporary visits to Mexico in 1926 under a permit issued to him under Rule 3, Subdivision F, paragraph 1 of the Immigration Rules of July 1, 1925.

Since more than three years had elapsed since appellant's illegal entry he is not deportable on that ground (8 U.S.C.A. § 155) and the appellee does not so contend. However, that statute of limitation does not confer upon appellant any right to return to the United States. He may be deported for a subsequent illegal entry. United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U.S. 422, 426, 53 S.Ct. 665, 77 L.Ed. 1298.

After the expiration of that permit, appellant, residing in Santa Barbara County, California, on December 26, 1926, temporarily crossed into Mexico and returned on the same day, presented himself to the Custom officials and was there admitted to the United States. It is the contention of the appellee that appellant was not then entitled to enter the United States since he was an alien ineligible to citizenship and not within the exceptions of Section 13 (c) of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, (8 U.S.C. § 213 (c), 8 U.S.C.A. § 213 (c));1 and hence he must be deported under Section 14 of that Act providing that "Any alien who at any time after entering the United States is found to have been at the time of entry not entitled under this act to enter the United States, * * * shall be taken into custody and deported * * *."

Appellant contends that by virtue of Rule 12, Subdivision A of the Immigration Rules of 1925, he was then entitled to enter and so was admitted to the United States. This regulation was not promulgated under the Immigration Act of 1924 but under Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, 39 Stat. 874, 8 U.S.C.A. § 136, which provides

"That aliens returning after a temporary absence to an unrelinquished United States domicile of seven consecutive years may be admitted in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, and under such conditions as he may prescribe."

Rule 12, Subdivision A, Paragraph 1,2 provided that any alien who has had a permanent residence in the United States for seven consecutive years could then be admitted by the Secretary of Labor after a temporary absence from the United States. However, the Immigration Act May 26, 1924, Section 25, provided with reference to all the prior immigration laws that "* * * an alien, although admissible under the provisions of the immigration laws other than this Act, shall not be admitted to the United States if he is excluded by any provision of this Act." 43 Stat. 166, 8 U.S.C.A. § 223.

It is unnecessary for us to determine whether the Act of 1924 repealed as to all aliens Section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, above stated, since it is clear that the 1924 Act repealed Section 3 of the 1917 Act so far as it applied to aliens ineligible to citizenship. We take it that the provision of Rule 12, subdivision A is to be construed in connection with Rule 3, Subdivision Paragraph 1, of the same rules and that the aliens referred to in Rule 12 are the aliens otherwise admissible referred to in Rule 3.

Appellant contends that, assuming the facts admitted, the deportation order must be set aside because he was denied due process in the hearing before the Inspectors. He had been taken to a concentration camp at Fort Lincoln, North Dakota, as an enemy alien, where, on March 23, 1942, the hearing on the warrant was held. Before the consideration of the merits of the proceeding appellant was asked and answered questions as follows:

"Q. Do you understand the nature of these charges? A. Yes.

"Q. Do you have a copy of this warrant of arrest? A. Yes.

"Q. A hearing will be granted for the purpose of affording you an opportunity to show cause, if there be any, why you should not be deported from the United States under the charges stated in this warrant of arrest. Do you understand? A. Yes.

"Q. At this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Schoeps v. Carmichael
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 23, 1949
    ...length of time spent abroad is an element to be considered, it must be made so by Congress, not the courts. Compare Madokoro v. Del Guercio, 9 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 164; Cahan v. Carr, 9 Cir., 47 F.2d 604, 605; Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 297, 34 S.Ct. 488, 58 L.Ed. 967. This is not a "sle......
  • FCC v. Schreiber
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • May 4, 1964
    ...of procedure required by law, it also directs that the Court take due account of the rule of prejudicial error. See Madokoro v. Del Guercio, 9th Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 164, 167, cert. denied 332 U.S. 764, 68 S.Ct. 68, 92 L.Ed. 349; Alesi v. Cornell, 9th Cir., 1957, 250 F.2d 877, 879; Florida ......
  • Aguilera-Enriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • May 7, 1975
    ...(2d Cir. 1972); Villanueva-Jurado v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 482 F.2d 886, 888 (5th Cir. 1973); Sumio Madokoro v. Del Guercio, 160 F.2d 164 (9th Cir. 1947). We turn, therefore, to Petitioner's second contention that his conviction on the Texas narcotics charge has not reache......
  • Matter of Santos
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • June 26, 1984
    ...888 (5th Cir. 1973); Henriques v. INS, 465 F.2d 119, 120-21 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 968 (1973); Sumio Madokoro v. Del Guercio, 160 F.2d 164, 167 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 764 (1947); Matter of Escobar, 18 I&N Dec. 412 (BIA 1983). The Supreme Court has recently acknow......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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