White v. Chin Fong

• Decision Date: 17 May 1920
• Docket Number: No. 506,506
• Citation: 253 U.S. 90,64 L.Ed. 797,40 S.Ct. 449
• Parties: WHITE, Immigration Com'r v. CHIN FONG
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

253 U.S. 90

40 S.Ct. 449

64 L.Ed. 797

WHITE, Immigration Com'r

v CHIN FONG.

No. 506.

Argued April 22, 1920.

Decided May 17, 1920.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Stewart, for petitioner.

Mr. J. H. Ralston, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Certiorari to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals discharging respondent from the custody of the Commissioner of Immigration, he holding respondent for deportation as a Chinese person not entitled to be in the United States. 258 Fed. 849, 169 C. C. A. 569. The judgment of the Court of Appeals reversed that of the District Court, the latter court having remanded respondent to the custody of the Commissioner for deportation.

The evidence establishes the fact that respondent entered the United States as a merchant and was such at a fixed place of bui ness for at least a year before his departure for China and that his stay in China was intended to be temporary. He hence contends that the Commissioner, as representing the executive branch of the government, had no authority to determine that his original entry was unlawful. This contention the District Court ruled against and the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of, and constitutes the question in the case. The Circuit Court of Appeals, by Circuit Judge Morrow, passing upon it said:

'The acting Secretary of Labor in approving the decision of the Commissioner of Immigration did so upon the ground that 'the original entry of this man [respondent] was obtained by fraud,' but this was not the question submitted to the Commissioner of Immigration or to the Secretary of Labor for decision. The question was not whether the applicant was legally admitted in 1896-1897 or 1906. The question was whether he had been a merchant in the United States at least one year before his departure from the United States in 1912. Chin Fong v. Backus, 241 U. S. 1-5, 36 Sup. Ct. 490, 60 L. Ed. 859.'

And upon that question it was decided that——

'The evidence was all one way, establishing beyond controversy all of the facts required by the statute and the rule of the Department of Labor.'

The conclusion was that the Commissioner did not consider this evidence or pass upon it, but deciding that appellee's original entry was fraudulent, ordered his deportation. In other words, it was held that the Commissioner ignored the question presented to him and the evidence pertaining to it, reviewed and reversed the judgment of another time and tribunal, took away the right that had been exercised under it and which gave the assurance that respondent could go to China and return again. The order of deportation was, therefore, declared to be void. For this the court cited the case of Chin Fong v. Backus, supra, 241 U. S. 1, 36 Sup. Ct. 490, 60 L. Ed. 859, and the various statutes applicable to the exclusion of Chinese persons from entry into the United States. 22 Stat. 58 (Comp. St. §§ 4290-4302, 4359); 23 Stat. 115 (Comp....