Ex parte Momo Tomimatsu

Good Law
232 F. 376·1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1665
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 26, 1916No. 15970California423 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Dooling, J.

[1] Petitioner, a Japanese woman, came here with a passport from the Japanese government, to join her husband, who is a Japanese domiciled in this country. She was refused admission by a board of special inquiry because afflicted with trachoma, a dangerous contagious disease. It is urged on her behalf that this board was not legally constituted, because its members were not all immigration officials; one of them being a clerk in the immigration service. Section 25 of the Immigration Act provides:.

At San Francisco, where the board of inquiry in the present case acted, there are more than three immigrant inspectors. It is to be noted that the members of such boards are not necessarily to be selected from immigrant inspectors, but from immigrant officials. Section 24 of the same act makes a distinction between immigration officers and clerks by the use of the following language:

But section 25, which provides for the creation of boards of special inquiry, does not use the word “officers,” but the word “officials.” And *378 while the act does distinguish between officers and clerks, there is nothing therein to indicate that the words “immigrant officials in the service” may not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.