United States v. Ruiz

• Decision Date: 11 March 1913
• Docket Number: 2,254.
• Citation: 203 F. 441
• Parties: UNITED STATES et al. v. RUIZ.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

203 F. 441

UNITED STATES et al. v. RUIZ.

No. 2,254.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 11, 1913

L. H Burns, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New Orleans, La. (Charlton R Beattie, U.S. Atty., of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellants.

J. A Morales and H. J. Rhodes, both of New Orleans, La., for appellee.

Before SHELBY, Circuit Judge, and NEWMAN and GRUBB, District Judges.

GRUBB District Judge.

This is an appeal by the United States from an order of the District Court making absolute a writ of habeas corpus applied for by the relator, who sought to be released from the custody of the Commissioner of Immigration at New Orleans, by whom he was held under a warrant issued by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor for his deportation to Spain, upon the ground that he was an alien of one of the excluded classes, having introduced into this country a woman for the purpose of prostitution.

The question which presents itself at the outset is that relating to the jurisdiction of the District Court in habeas corpus proceedings to release one detained for the purpose of deportation under the immigration laws. The law is well settled that one seeking to enter the United States is entitled to a fair hearing as to his right to do so before the executive officers, though the hearing may be a summary one; that, having had such a hearing, the decision of the Commissioner of Immigration, or of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor on appeal, against his right to enter, is due process of law, and is conclusive upon the immigrant, even though wrong. If a fair, though summary, hearing has been denied the immigrant, the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter, upon the merits, upon habeas corpus, and release the immigrant, if it be shown on the hearing before it, even by evidence not offered on the hearing before the executive officers, that he does not belong to any one of the excluded classes. As a preliminary to entering upon a trial of the merits, the District Court must first determine that the immigrant was denied a fair hearing before the Commissioner of Immigration, or before the Secretary upon appeal to him from the Commissioner. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 644, 49 L.Ed. 1040; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U.S. 8, 28 Sup.Ct. 201, 52 L.Ed. 369.

The first inquiry is, therefore: Was the relator denied a fair hearing before the executive officers? The hearing before the Commissioner of Immigration and the Secretary in this case was based on the examination of the relator before one Tresavuk, an inspector of the Bureau of Immigration. If the method of examination of the immigrant by the inspector was unfair, then the hearing before the Commissioner and Secretary were also unfair, since they were based upon that examination. The alleged unfairness of the examination of the relator is based upon the fact that it was taken immediately after an assault was committed upon him by the arresting officers, and in the presence of the immigration inspector and while he was still, in a sense, under the influence of the intimidation caused by it; that he was not allowed counsel until after his examination was completed; that, being unable to speak or read English, an interpreter was necessary in the conduct of the examination, and that the inspector of immigration acted as the interpreter, as well as the prosecutor; and that certain documentary evidence which the relator offered in his own behalf on the examination, consisting of letters and a return trip railroad ticket to San Antonio, Tex., found on his person when arrested, was not transmitted with the record in the case to the Secretary for consideration by him upon the appeal. We incline to the view that there is enough shown in the record to cast sufficient doubt upon the fairness of the examination of the relator, conducted by the inspector, to justify the District Court in hearing the application upon the merits, and upon evidence other than that introduced on the hearing before the executive...