United States v. Sisson
| Decision Date | 11 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 280. |
| Citation | 232 F. 599 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. HEN LEE v. SISSON, Chinese Inspector. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
R. M Moore, of New York City (B. W. Berry, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
H Snowden Marshall, U.S. Atty., of New York City (H. A Content, Asst. U.S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before WARD and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and MAYER, District Judge.
September 7, 1915, Hen Lee was arrested while attempting surreptitiously to enter the United States from Canada at Detroit. He was given a fair hearing before the Chinese and immigration inspector, before whom he testified that he was 25 years of age, was born in San Francisco, from where he removed in 1906 to New York, where he remained until 1910, when he sailed for China from Vancouver, returning to Canada in 1911, where he lived until he was arrested, as above stated, in 1915. Although no witness contradicted his testimony that he was born in San Francisco, the inspector did not believe it because his ignorance about a place in which he had lived until he was 16 was quite sufficient to discredit the statement. This finding is final. Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U.S. 673, 32 Sup.Ct. 359, 56 L.Ed. 606.
The relator was given an opportunity to call witnesses as to his birth, and also to have counsel, which offers he declined. The Acting Secretary of Labor, upon these proofs and the report of the Inspector, directed the relator to be deported to China. A writ of habeas corpus was taken out and dismissed, from which order this appeal is taken.
There is no doubt that the relator should be deported from the United States under section 21 of the Act of 1907 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4270), because he is subject to deportation under the provisions of section 3 of the Chinese Exclusion Act of May 5, 1892, c. 60, 27 Stat. 25 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4317). The question is to what country should he be deported under section 35 of the act of 1907. His counsel contends that, as he had lived three or four years in Canada, it was the country from which he came, and to which, and not to China, he should be returned. The United States, on the other hand, insists that as he has been found to have been born in China he should be returned there.
Section 35 of the act of 1907 reads:
'That the deportation of aliens arrested within the United States after entry and found to be illegally therein, provided for in this act, shall be to the trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific ports from which said aliens embarked for the United States; or, if such embarkation was for foreign contiguous territory, to the foreign part at which said aliens embarked for such territory. ' Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4284.
This provision literally applies to aliens found in the United States after entry, whereas this alien was arrested upon entry. Still the reason of the provision is equally applicable to an arrest in either case, and the question is whether the section contemplates an embarkation for foreign contiguous territory with intention to enter the United States via that territory, or whether it applies to any alien who lands in contiguous foreign territory, even if he does so with the intention of staying, and even if he has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...Agnieszka Boraca were domiciled in Canada before Stanislaw's entry in the United States. In this connection the case of United States v. Sisson, 2 Cir., 232 F. 599, is material. It was there held that an alien who had established his domicile in Canada for three or four years, had to be dep......
-
United States v. Commissioner of Immigration
...2 Cir., 16 F.2d 958, 961, where residence was held to be determinative of the country whence the alien came. See, also, United States v. Sisson, 2 Cir., 232 F. 599. If residence is the test, Cuba is certainly the country whence the alien came. But even if it be necessary to show that she wa......
-
United States v. Hen Lee
... ... [236 F. 795] ... An ... appeal was then taken by the defendant to the Circuit Court ... of Appeals, Second Circuit, which reversed the order of Judge ... Hough and ordered the relator deported to Canada. United ... States ex rel. Hen Lee v. Sisson, 232 F. 599, ... C.C.A ... The government, under the claim that the ... restrictive laws enforced in the Dominion of Canada including ... the exaction of a head tax of $500 for each Oriental entering ... Canada, has taken recourse to the Chinese Exclusion Law (Act ... May 5, 1892, ... ...
-
United States v. Curran
...left the question open in Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291, 34 S. Ct. 488, 58 L. Ed. 967, the matter came up squarely in United States ex rel. Hen Lee v. Sisson, 232 F. 599, and this court again asserted and exercised the power to ascertain the lawful port or place to which the alien should be......