Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
TAKAJI MUKAI v. BURNETT, District Director, 1932 — 62 F.2d 355 · caselaw · US
General
TAKAJI MUKAI v. BURNETT, District Director
62 F.2d 355·United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·1932
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
TAKAJI MUKAI v. BURNETT, District Director.
No. 6888.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 19, 1932.
J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Samuel W. McNabb, U. S. Atty., and Harry G. Balter, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal. (Harry B. Blee, Immigration Service, of Los Angeles, Cal., on the brief), 1 for appellee.
Before WILBUR, SAWTELLE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Takaji Mukai, entered the United States in April, 1925. At that time he had no immigration visa and was not entitled to enter the United States. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 S. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. 199; section 13 (e), Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA 213(e). He is subject to deportation under section 14 of the Immigration Act of 19214 (8 USCA § 214). Appellant contends that the deportation proceeding is barred by reason of the fact that more than five years have expired from the time of his first entry, which occurred more than five years prior to the initiation of the deportation proceeding. In support of his contention he relies upon the provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 USCA § 155), and the amendment contained in section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924. This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48, 51 S. Ct. 358, 75 L. Ed. 833, and U. S. v. Vanbiervliet, 284 U. S. 590, 52 S. Ct. 132, 76 L. Ed. —-. See, also, United States ex rel. Leo Stapf v. Corsi, 53 S. Ct. 40, 77 L. Ed. —-, decided by the Supreme Court November 7, 1932; Hendriksen v. Weedin, 61 F.(2d) 1030, decided by this court November 16, 1932.
Order affirmed.