White

Mok Nuey Tau v. White

Good Law
157 C.C.A. 190·244 F. 742·1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 2058
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 20, 1917No. 2944California944 words

Opinion

concurrence Opinion

Ross, J.

(concurring). I concur in the judgment and the opinion of the court, except in that clause thereof which holds that the appellant “was not entitled to be represented by an attorney at the examination.”

lead Opinion

Gidbert, J.

On November 9, 1915, the appellant, then nine years of age was admitted to the United States as the foreign-born son of Mock Juck, who was a native-born citizen of the United States residing at Oakland, Cal. A month after his arrival he went from San Francisco to the state of Alabama, where seven months later he was arrested on the executive warrant of the Secretary of Dabor and was ordered deported on the ground that he was an alien found in the United States in violation of the act of February 20, 1907, as amended by the act of March 26, 1910 ( 36 Stat. 263 , c. 128 [Comp. St. 1916, §§ 4244, 4247]). He appeals from the order of the court below sustaining a demurrer to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

[1] It is contended on behalf of the appellant that if he is illegally in the United States he is entitled to have that 'fact determined by the judicial branch of the government, and that the Secretary of Dabor is without jurisdiction. The contention cannot be sustained. In United States v. Wong You, 223 U. S. 67 , 32 Sup. Ct. 195, 56 L. Ed. 354 , it was held that Chinamen who had entered the United States surreptitiously, in a manner prohibited by section 36 of the…

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.