Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/273/352/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:14:40+00:00

Document:
nor by the absence of a friend or relative of the applicant for entry when the applicant waived his right in that regard, nor by the introduction before the Board of testimony previously taken by an inspector, where the applicant made no objection thereto and did not seek to recall the witness. P. 273 U. S. 355.
2. An applicant for admission who has never resided in the United States is not entitled under the Constitution to a judicial hearing of his claim that he is a citizen of the United States by birth. P. 273 U. S. 357.
3. A petition in habeas corpus based solely on the right of the petitioner cannot be maintained on the right of another. P. 273 U. S. 358.
4. When a party respondent has since died, the judgment (one of affirmance) will be nunc pro tunc as of the date of submission. P. 273 U. S. 359.
Appeal from a final order of the district court discharging a writ of habeas corpus, and remanding Poy, the petitioner, to the custody of the Commissioner of Immigration.
United States. After a preliminary investigation by an inspector, his claim was heard, under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1917, [Footnote 2] by a Board of Special Inquiry which decided, on the evidence, that he was not shown to be the son of Quon Mee Sing, and should be excluded as a Chinese alien not a member of any of the exempt classes entitled to enter the United States. On an appeal to the Secretary of Labor, this finding having been approved by the Board of Review, the Secretary sustained the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry and a deportation warrant was issued to the Commissioner of Immigration.
declined to hear witnesses offered by him for the purpose of independently establishing his citizenship, and entered judgment discharging the writ and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the Commissioner of Immigration. This direct appeal was then allowed under § 238 of the Judicial Code, prior to the Jurisdictional Act of 1925.
to Quon Mee Sing had not been reasonably established, voted to accord him five days in which to submit additional evidence. Notice of this was sent to the attorney representing the petitioner, who had not been present at any of the proceedings, and he replied that the petitioner had no further testimony to offer. The Board then recalled the petitioner for further examination, after which he stated that he had nothing further to say, and again decided that his claimed relationship to Quon Mee Sing had not been reasonably established and that he should be excluded, and informed him of his right to appeal to the Secretary of Labor.
This appeal having been taken, the Board of Review, after hearing the attorney for the petitioner, made a report in which it reviewed the entire testimony, found that the record was "exceptionally unfavorable" to the petitioner, and, after referring to his lack of knowledge of matters which clearly should have been within his memory, his unsatisfactory explanations, the discrepancies between his statements and those of his alleged father and brother, and to a previous statement by his alleged father to the effect that he had no such son, concluded that the petitioner had fallen "far short" of establishing that he was in truth and fact the son of Quon Mee Sing, and accordingly recommended that the exclusion decision be affirmed.
single inspector. These are not well taken. Clearly the mere delay in the commencement of the investigation. although involving the detention of the petitioner, had no bearing upon the fairness of the hearing itself. The argument as to the necessity for the presence of a kinsman or friend of the petitioner at the hearing is based upon the provision in § 17 of the Immigration Act that, while the hearing "shall be separate and apart from the public," the applicant for admission "may have one friend or relative present under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Labor." Here, however, the Board, at the outset of the hearing, informed the petitioner of his right to have a relative or friend present, and he expressly waived this right and stated that he was willing to proceed with the hearing. And see United States .v Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 169. The contention that the hearing was invalid because the greater part of the testimony was taken before a single inspector and introduced before the Board is based upon a provision in the same section of the Act that, on an appeal from the Board of Special Inquiry, the decision shall be rendered "solely upon the evidence adduced before the Board." There is, however, no suggestion whatever in the Act that the evidence adduced before the Board of Special Inquiry must be taken in its presence. We see no reason to doubt that evidence properly taken before an inspector, § 16 -- which has substantially the same effect as a deposition taken in an ordinary case -- may be introduced before the Board and considered by it. See Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U. S. 454, 253 U. S. 458. And here the petitioner offered no objection to the introduction of such testimony and no application was made to recall the witnesses for reexamination by the Board.
in the Board of Special Inquiry the authority to determine the question of his citizenship and making its decision when approved by the Secretary of Labor final, is unconstitutional in that it deprives him of the right to a judicial hearing to which he is entitled as due process under the Constitution, and that it was therefore the duty of the district court to proceed, independently of the departmental decision, to an adjudication as to his citizenship. It is clear, however, in the light of the previous decisions of this Court, that when the petitioner, who had never resided in the United States, presented himself at its border for admission, the mere fact that he claimed to be a citizen did not entitle him under the Constitution to a judicial hearing, and that, unless it appeared that the departmental officers to whom Congress had entrusted the decision of his claim had denied him an opportunity to establish his citizenship at a fair hearing, or acted in some unlawful or improper way or abused their discretion, their finding upon the question of citizenship was conclusive, and not subject to review, and it was the duty of the court to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus without proceeding further. United States v. Sing Tuck, 194 U. S. 161, 194 U. S. 168; United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 198 U. S. 263; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 208 U. S. 11; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673, 223 U. S. 675, and Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U. S. 276, 259 U. S. 282.
3. It is also urged in argument that, apart from the petitioner's own claim, Quon Mee Sing was independently entitled to maintain the petition for habeas corpus in enforcement of his right to the custody of a minor child, and to obtain to that end an adjudication of his kinship to the petitioner. It suffices to say that no such question is here presented. The petition was filed solely in the right of the petitioner. No right was asserted in behalf of Quon Mee Sing. No such question appears to have been presented in the hearing in the district court, and none was raised by the assignments of error.
The judgment of the district court must accordingly be affirmed. But, the Court being advised that the appellee, the Commissioner of Immigration, has died since December 10, 1926, the day on which this case was argued and submitted, the judgment here will be entered nunc pro tunc as of that day. Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U. S. 62, 103 U. S. 65; Richardson v. Green, 130 U. S. 104, 130 U. S. 116; Bell v. Bell, 181 U. S. 175, 181 U. S. 179; Cuebas v. Cuebas, 223 U. S. 376, 223 U. S. 390.
Judgment affirmed nunc pro tunc.
By this section -- with an exception not here material -- all children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers are at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States.
This Act provides that any alien, including "any person not a native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States," who may not appear to the examining immigration inspector to be clearly and undoubtedly entitled to land, shall be detained for examination in relation thereto by a board of special inquiry, which shall have authority to determine whether he shall be allowed to land or shall be deported, and that in the event of his rejection by the board of special inquiry he may appeal to the Secretary of Labor, whose decision, where the deportation is ordered, shall be final. Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874, §§ 1, 16, 17, 19.

References: § 238
 § 17
 § 16
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.