Sumio Madokoro v. Del Guercio, No. 11260.

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

160 F.2d 164 (1947)

SUMIO MADOKORO
v.
DEL GUERCIO, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.

No. 11260.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

February 27, 1947.

Rehearing Denied April 4, 1947.


160 F.2d 165

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

160 F.2d 166
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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • Schoeps v. Carmichael, No. 12008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1949
    ...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 "sleeping car" case, Di P......
  • FCC v. Schreiber, No. 17990.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1964
    ...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 Citrus Commission v. U......
  • Aguilera-Enriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, AGUILERA-ENRIQUE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 7, 1975
    ...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. We turn, therefore, to Petitioner's second contention that his conviction on the Texas narcotics charge has not reached the stage......
  • Matter of Santos, Interim Decision Number 2969
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • June 26, 1984
    ...(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 acknowledg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Schoeps v. Carmichael, No. 12008.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1949
    ...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 "sleeping car" case, Di P......
  • FCC v. Schreiber, No. 17990.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 4, 1964
    ...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 Citrus Commission v. U......
  • Aguilera-Enriguez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, AGUILERA-ENRIQUE
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • May 7, 1975
    ...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. We turn, therefore, to Petitioner's second contention that his conviction on the Texas narcotics charge has not reached the stage......
  • Matter of Santos, Interim Decision Number 2969
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • June 26, 1984
    ...(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 acknowledg......
  • 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