United States v. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 April 1911
• Citation: 187 F. 470
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. UEBERALL v. WILLIAMS, Com'r of Immigration.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

187 F. 470

UNITED STATES ex rel. UEBERALL v. WILLIAMS, Com'r of Immigration.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

April 12, 1911

This case comes up upon return to a writ of habeas corpus issued to inquire into the detention of the relator by the immigration authorities at Ellis Island, in this district under warrant of deportation issued by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. The relator was arrested upon warrant of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, has had a hearing, and is about to be deported as an alien who has entered the country within three years and is within the excluded classes. It is not necessary to take up the question of the grounds of exclusion, as those are concededly not within the jurisdiction of this court. The question presented is as follows: The relator came into the country more than three years before the warrant was issued from the port of Rotterdam, in the kingdom of Holland. Shortly before the arrest, being in the city of Niagara Falls, in the state of New York, he took a carriage and went over to the Canadian side of the falls, apparently for the purpose of viewing them. After staying there an hour or more, he came back into the state of New York. The warrant of deportation directs that he shall be deported to the empire of Austria. Three questions are raised: First, whether he made a new entry into this country when he came back across the Canadian line second, whether, if he can be deported at all, it should be to Canada, to Holland, or to Austria; third, whether, in case he should be deported to Canada, this court has any jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas corpus, because he is to be deported to Austria. The relator is a native of the empire of Austria, and was en route from Austria to this country when he embarked at Rotterdam, more than three years prior to the issuance of the warrant.

Alex. I. Hahn, for relator.

Daniel D. Walton, for the United States.

HAND District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The first question to be determined is whether the relator entered this country within three years of the time of his arrest. Since the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals of this Circuit, in Re Annie Lapina (Exparte Hoffman) 179 F. 839, 103 C.C.A. 327 this question has been authoritatively settled. I do not see how the duration of the period of absence in a foreign country or its purpose can affect the result. This particular instance...