Wong Yang Sung v. Clark, No. 3420.

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtThomas Farrell and Leo J. Michalowski, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner
Citation80 F. Supp. 235
PartiesWONG YANG SUNG v. CLARK, Atty. Gen., et al.
Docket NumberNo. 3420.
Decision Date28 July 1948

80 F. Supp. 235

WONG YANG SUNG
v.
CLARK, Atty. Gen., et al.

No. 3420.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

July 28, 1948.


Thomas Farrell and Leo J. Michalowski, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

George Morris Fay, U. S. Atty., and Oliver Dibble, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for respondents.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a writ of habeas corpus to review an order of deportation. The petitioner, whose deportation has been ordered by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to the provisions of the Immigration Laws, contends that the proceeding was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.

Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, U.S.C.A. Title 5, § 1006, on which the petitioner relies, requires statutory hearings to be conducted before an examiner appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The hearing in this case, as is customary in all deportation proceedings, was conducted by an Inspector or Board of Inspectors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. If the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act are applicable, the hearing was not properly conducted.

The Court feels, however, that this requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to hearings under the Immigration Laws, in the light of the following provision of Subsection (a) of Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act: "Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to supersede the conduct of specified classes of proceedings in whole or part by or before boards or other officers

80 F. Supp. 236
specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute."

Section 152 of Title 8 of the United States Code, Annotated, which governs the authority and powers of Immigrant Inspectors, provides that such Inspectors shall have power to administer oaths and to take and consider evidence touching the right of any alien to enter, re-enter, pass through or reside in the United States, and where such action may be necessary, make a written record of such evidence. In the light of this provision it seems to the Court that deportation proceedings are within the exception contained in Section 7(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is a specified class of proceedings before officers specially provided for by or designated pursuant to statute.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion that deportation hearings may be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Smithdeal v. American Air Lines, No. 3090.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • October 13, 1948
    ...v. Pacific Air Transport Corp., 9 Cir., 84 F. 2d 755; Id., 300 U.S. 654, 655, 57 S.Ct. 431, 81 L.Ed. 865; Swetland v. Curtiss Airports 80 F. Supp. 235 Corp., D.C., 41 F.2d 929; United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 90 L.Ed. 1206; Neiswonger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., D.C......
  • Wong Yang Sung v. Grath, No. 154
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1950
    ...discharged the writ and remanded the prisoner to custody, holding the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to deportation hearings. 80 F.Supp. 235. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 84 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 174 F.2d 158. Prisoner's petition for certiorari was not opposed by the Government and......
  • Yiakoumis v. Hall, No. 112-115.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • February 25, 1949
    ...States v. Carusi does not hold that those sections apply to deportation proceedings. We agree with Wong Yang Sung v. Clark, D.C.D.C., 80 F.Supp. 235, that by sec. 7(a), also, the Administrative Procedure Act is rendered inapplicable to deportation 83 F. Supp. 473 proceedings, the provision ......
  • Yanish v. Wixon, No. 28347.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 20, 1948
    ...1 Loufakis v. United States, 3 Cir., 81 F.2d 966; Graham v. United States, 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 746, 748. 2 Wong Yan Sung v. Clark, D.C., 80 F. Supp. 235; United States ex rel. Obum, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 36; Ex parte Wong So Wan, D.C.N.D.Cal., 82 F.Supp. 60. Cf. Leo Tack v. Clark, D.C.S.D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Smithdeal v. American Air Lines, No. 3090.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Northern District of Texas
    • October 13, 1948
    ...v. Pacific Air Transport Corp., 9 Cir., 84 F. 2d 755; Id., 300 U.S. 654, 655, 57 S.Ct. 431, 81 L.Ed. 865; Swetland v. Curtiss Airports 80 F. Supp. 235 Corp., D.C., 41 F.2d 929; United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 90 L.Ed. 1206; Neiswonger v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., D.C......
  • Wong Yang Sung v. Grath, No. 154
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1950
    ...discharged the writ and remanded the prisoner to custody, holding the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to deportation hearings. 80 F.Supp. 235. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 84 U.S.App.D.C. 419, 174 F.2d 158. Prisoner's petition for certiorari was not opposed by the Government and......
  • Yiakoumis v. Hall, No. 112-115.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
    • February 25, 1949
    ...States v. Carusi does not hold that those sections apply to deportation proceedings. We agree with Wong Yang Sung v. Clark, D.C.D.C., 80 F.Supp. 235, that by sec. 7(a), also, the Administrative Procedure Act is rendered inapplicable to deportation 83 F. Supp. 473 proceedings, the provision ......
  • Yanish v. Wixon, No. 28347.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 20, 1948
    ...1 Loufakis v. United States, 3 Cir., 81 F.2d 966; Graham v. United States, 9 Cir., 99 F.2d 746, 748. 2 Wong Yan Sung v. Clark, D.C., 80 F. Supp. 235; United States ex rel. Obum, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 36; Ex parte Wong So Wan, D.C.N.D.Cal., 82 F.Supp. 60. Cf. Leo Tack v. Clark, D.C.S.D.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT