United States v. Reimer
| Decision Date | 21 March 1938 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. SIEGEL v. REIMER, Com'r of Immigration and Naturalization. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Irwin Isaacs, of New York City, for petitioner.
Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Samuel Brodsky, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for respondent.
The Secretary of Labor ordered that Charles Fisk be deported as an alien "sentenced to imprisonment for a term of one year or more because of conviction in this country of a crime involving moral turpitude, committed within five years after the entry of the alien, to the United States". 8 U.S.C.A. § 155. The legality of the order is disputed on writ of habeas corpus.
The record on which the order of deportation was issued shows that Fisk came to this country from England in 1907; that in 1932 or 1933 he went to Canada on a sight-seeing trip, returning to the United States two days later; that in 1936 he was sentenced to prison for not less than three years and not more than six years for grand larceny committed on October 3, 1935. The proof as to the trip to Canada consists of an admission to that effect made by Fisk to an immigration inspector prior to issuance of warrant for deportation, and of a similar statement made at a hearing held in prison after issuance of the warrant.
The second coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States is an "entry". United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U.S. 398, 49 S.Ct. 354, 73 L.Ed. 758; United States ex rel. Ciccerelli v. Curran, 2 Cir., 12 F.2d 394. The fact that the alien had resided here for many years prior to the most recent entry, the fact that his later departure to a foreign country was for a temporary purpose, involving no interruption of continuity of residence here, and was followed by almost immediate re-entry into this country, are matters that have no legal significance. A re-entry after a visit to a foreign country, no matter how brief, is an entry within the meaning of the statute. United States ex rel. Kowalenski v. Flynn, 17 F.2d 524, D. C.N.Y.; Ex parte Piazzola, 18 F.2d 114, D.C.N.Y.; United States ex rel. Medich v. Burmaster, 8 Cir., 24 F.2d 57; Ex parte Rocha, 30 F.2d 823, D.C.Tex.; United States ex rel. Covielli v. Commissioner, decided here March 24, 1931, unreported; Jackson v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 59 F.2d 937; Ex parte Marinaro, 2 F.Supp. 117, D.C.N. Y.; United States ex rel. Carella v. Karnuth, 2 F.Supp. 998, D.C.N.Y....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaname Susuki v. Harris
...conflict with the weight of authority. Zurbrick v. Woodhead, 6 Cir., 90 F.2d 991, and authorities therein cited; United States ex rel. Siegel v. Reimer, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 643; United States ex rel. Dombrowski v. Karnuth, D. C., 19 F.Supp. 222; United States ex rel. Drachmos v. Hughes, D.C., ......
-
United States v. Wiley
...coming of an alien from a foreign country into the United States is an entry within the acceptation of the word. See also Siegel v. Reimer, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 643. Finally it is urged that because of the delay in the execution of the deportation warrant, the warrant is now What constitutes a ......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy
...Bendel v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1927, 17 F.2d 719, 57 A.L.R. 1129; U. S. ex rel. Lamp v. Corsi, 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 964; U. S. ex rel. Siegel v. Reimer, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 643, affirmed U. S. ex rel. Fisk v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d The remaining cases cited by the government in support of th......
-
United States v. Colding, M-1528.
...ex rel. Roovers v. Kessler, 5 Cir., 90 F.2d 327; McCandless v. United States ex rel. Pantoja, 3 Cir., 44 F.2d 786; United States ex rel. Siegel v. Reimer, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 643. In Lewis v. Frick, 233 U.S. 291, 34 S.Ct. 488, 491, 58 L.Ed. 967, which discussed the case of the return of an ali......