Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/336/806/case.php
Timestamp: 2018-06-23 17:47:28
Document Index: 709138681

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 153', '§ 3', '§ 136', '§ 16', '§ 152', '§ 16', '§ 152', '§ 136', '§ 17', '§ 153', '§ 17', '§ 34', '§ 7']

JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, 336 U. S. 806 (1949) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 336 > JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, 336 U. S. 806 (1949)
JOHNSON V. SHAUGHNESSY, 336 U. S. 806 (1949)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 336 U. S. 806
1. A board of special inquiry appointed pursuant to § 17 of the Immigration Act of 1917 as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 153, is bound to accept as final a certificate that an alien is a mental defective of a class excluded from admission to the United States by § 3, 8 U.S.C. § 136(d), where such certificate has been issued by a medical appeal board after a fair hearing in conformity with § 16, 8 U.S.C. § 152, and regulations of the Public Health Service prescribed pursuant thereto. P. 336 U. S. 809.
2. A report of a medical appeal board appointed pursuant to § 16 of the Immigration Act of 1917 as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 152, to review a finding of two medical officers that an alien seeking admission to the United States is mentally defective does not comply with the applicable law and regulations where it fails to show that the appeal board based its findings and conclusion "on its medical examination of the alien," and merely shows that it considered the appeal and, after "taking into consideration" the certificate of the medical officers who made the original examination and the testimony of an alienist employed by the alien, concurred chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
in the report of the medical officers who made the first examination. Pp. 336 U. S. 809-812.
(a) The appeal board could not rest its finding that the alien was a mental defective on the certificate of the original examining officers, since the Act and regulations prescribe an independent review and reexamination. P. 336 U. S. 812.
(b) The statement of the appeal board that it had "considered the appeal" cannot be treated as a certification that the alien had been given an independent medical examination. P. 336 U. S. 812.
3. Assuming, without deciding, that defects in the appeal board's report could be cured by additional data in the record, the data in the record in this case is not sufficient to cure the defect. Pp. 336 U. S. 812-815.
In a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the validity of the detention of an alien under an exclusion order issued by a board of special inquiry under the Immigration Act of 1917 as amended, the District Court discharged the writ and ordered the alien remanded to the immigration authorities. 82 F.Supp. 36. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 170 F.2d 1009. This Court granted certiorari. 336 U.S. 924. Reversed and remanded, p. 336 U. S. 815.
The American Foreign Service at Stockholm issued to petitioner an immigration visa to come to the United chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 excludes from admission into this country certain classes of aliens deemed undesirable. Among those excluded are persons "who are found to be and are certified by the examining surgeon as being mentally . . . defective. . . ." 39 Stat. 874, 875, 8 U.S.C. § 136(d). Section 16 of the Act [Footnote 1] provides that mental examinations of arriving aliens shall be made by not less than two United States Public Health Service medical officers especially trained in the diagnosis of insanity and mental defects. The same section authorizes an appeal to a special board of medical officers of the Public Health Service for any alien who is certified by the two medical officers as a mental defective. Finally § 17 of the Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 153, provides that boards of special inquiry shall be appointed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, subject to approval of the Attorney General. These boards of special inquiry are granted "authority to determine whether an alien who has been duly held shall be allowed to land or shall be deported." It was a board of special inquiry of this kind that ordered petitioner excluded from the United States. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
First. Two medical officers of the Public Health Service signed a certificate that petitioner was a mental defective. On appeal, a board of three Public Health medical officers affirmed the finding of this certificate. Later, when her case was under consideration by a board of special inquiry of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, petitioner asked for time to produce additional evidence to show that she was not a mental defective. The board refused to hear such evidence, holding that it was bound by § 17 of the Immigration Act to accept as final the medical certification that she was a mental defective. Petitioner contends that this holding was error which invalidates the exclusion order. We hold that the Court of Appeals correctly rejected this contention.
Second. Petitioner attacks the validity of both the initial medical certificate and that of the appellate medical board, contending that they provide an inadequate basis for excluding her from the United States. The chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Surgeon General issued regulations which detail the manner in which medical examinations shall be held and the type of certificates by which examining doctors and boards shall report their findings and conclusions. As shown by the dissenting opinion below, serious challenges have been made to the sufficiency of the certificate of the medical appeal board, as well as to the initial medical certificate in which two doctors certified petitioner to be a mental defective. [Footnote 2] The shortcomings of the initial certificate, however, probably could have been rendered harmless chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Regulations of the Public Health Service provide the way in which medical appeal boards shall be convened and detail a procedure for the boards to follow. The regulations impose a duty on such boards "to reexamine an alien;" they further provide that "reexamination shall include . . . a medical examination by the board;" that the "findings and conclusions of the board shall be based on its medical examination of the alien;" and that "[t]he board shall report its findings and conclusions to the Immigration Service. . . ." [Footnote 3] The report of the medical appeal board here shows only that it
The Government contends, however, that additional data in the record shows that the board did reexamine the petitioner. We may assume without deciding that the defects in the appellate board's report could be cured by additional record data, but we find no such data in the record sufficient to cure the defect. The data on chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Apparently, the second day after petitioner had commenced her voyage to America the ship's doctor visited her. He found her weak and dizzy. She stated that "she could not stand the sea," and would not go to the dining room. The doctor's impression after his first visit was that she was seasick. The next day, according to the doctor's report, she admitted hallucinations, stating that at night she heard cries and saw faces, said she had given the consul "wrong information," and thought this sinful. At this time, the ship's doctor wrote down his "impression of incipient psychosis" and transferred her to the isolation ward of the ship's hospital. The next day, according to the doctor, petitioner stated that she had been treated for insanity at her home in Sweden for a six-month period two years before. On the last day of the sea trip, the ship's doctor reported that she had cleared up "remarkably," that she had no recollection of "a lot of strange things she had said before," was sleeping well, denied having any hallucinations, and looked "considerably better." chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
That is to say, the report, as the Court phrases it, "makes clear that the appeal board made no such medical examination as was required by the regulations." [Footnote 2/1] My reading of the opinion is that the Court thinks the record affirmatively shows a failure to comply with the statute and regulation § 34.13(g) and (h) as to findings and examination. [Footnote 2/2] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
There is a suggestion that a medical appeal board must certify that the alien had been examined. [Footnote 2/3] I assume, however, that, if the Court intended to require specific certification by the medical board of the steps leading to its findings and conclusions, it would have made such a holding definitive. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
I disagree with the Court's interpretation of the report. A strong presumption exists that public officials perform their duty. If the report had added the phrase, "in accordance with the regulations," after the word "considered," there could be no doubt as to the sufficiency of the report. The presumption of regularity until rebutted requires courts to adopt such an interpretation. [Footnote 2/4] The statement of the board of medical officers that it "has considered the appeal" means to me that the board has proceeded conformably to the statute and regulations.
(2) There is a graver error in the Court's holding, however, which may interfere with sound administrative procedure. Although petitioner was represented by counsel, no objection to the form of the report was made during the administrative process. This case heretofore has centered around the issue of finality disposed of by the Court. Even in the several hearings of her effort to get relief by habeas corpus, petitioner has never asserted, in this or any other court, that she was not examined by the physicians of the medical review board. This is made plain by the Court's statement of the generalized objections on other grounds to the report of the medical review board, see opinion at note 2 and from the affidavits and objections appearing in the record. The dissenting judge, 170 F.2d 1009, did not refer to the failure to examine petitioner. He spoke only of the failure of the Board of Special Inquiry and the medical board to require adequate and revealing certificates and reports. Even the petition for certiorari does not present the question. The brief does not discuss it. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The administrative remedy must be exhausted by fair effort to correct administrative errors before resort to habeas corpus or other judicial remedies. [Footnote 2/5] To permit occasional reversal of administrative orders on points not brought to the attention of the agency hampers administrative routine and, if adopted as a rule of law, would disorganize administrative procedure. Afterthought cannot take the place of required objection. This is not a case where rules of practice and procedure defeat the ends of justice. [Footnote 2/6] There is nothing in this record to indicate that disabilities of petitioner, or difficulties of procedure or practice, the emergence of a new rule of law, or any other change of circumstance has affected the course of petitioner's pleas. She has had advantage of every method of relief known to the law, but has not seen fit to bring forward the ground upon which this Court reverses.
It is obvious that, had objection been made to the form of the report of the Board of Medical Officers at the hearing chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"Reexamination; convening of boards; expert witnesses; reports. (a) The Surgeon General, or when authorized, a medical officer in charge, shall convene a board of medical officers to reexamine an alien"
Lewis v. United States, 279 U. S. 63, 279 U. S. 73:
Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U. S. 54, 291 U. S. 63, and authorities cited; United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U. S. 1, 272 U. S. 14.
We refused to review an issue not raised before an administrative body in Unemployment Commission v. Aragan, 329 U. S. 143, 329 U. S. 155:
Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 71 App.D.C. 157, 107 F.2d 956, 958. Cf. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, 303 U. S. 41, 303 U. S. 51, note 9; Blair v. Oesterlein Mach. Co., 275 U. S. 220.
The Administrative Procedure Act contemplates presentation before the administrative agency of every issue that may be made the subject of judicial review by habeas corpus or appellate process. 60 Stat. 237, § 7(c), 8(b)(2), 10(b), (c) and (e). The rule against raising questions on judicial review that were not raised in administrative proceedings has general application, see Caldarone v. Zoning Board of Review, 60 A.2d 158, 159; Reisberg v. Board of Standards and Appeals, 81 N.Y.S.2d 511, 513; General Transp. Co. v. United States, 65 F.Supp. 981, 984.
Cf. Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U. S. 552, 312 U. S. 557.