General
UNITED STATES ex rel. GONCALOES et al. v. WILLIAMS, Immigration Com'r
204 F. 846·United States District Court for the Southern District of New York·1913
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
UNITED STATES ex rel. GONCALOES et al. v. WILLIAMS, Immigration Com’r.
(District Court, S. D. New York.
May 2, 1913.)
Habeas Corpus (§ 23) — Deportation oe Aliens — Board of Special Inquiry — BINDINGS.
Findings of a board of special inquiry that aliens applying to enter, none of whom had sufficient money to take them to their destination and. pay their passage back to the country from whence they came, were liable to become public charges, and excluding them for that reason, were conclusive, and could not be reviewed on habeas corpus.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Habeas Corpus, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. § 23.
Scope of review on habeas corpus to procure release of persons sought to be extradited, see note to Bruce v. Rayner, 62 C. C. A. 506.]
Habeas corpus for aliens excluded upon arrival.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
[MAJORITY — LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.]
LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.
These aliens were all examined before the board of special inquiry. None of them had money enough with him to take him to his destination and pay his passage back to Portugal. None of them had any relative here legally bound to .support him. The board saw them all, and was able to form its own judgment as to their physical and mental qualifications. It excluded them all as liable to become public charges. That finding is conclusive, and cannot be reviewed here.
If the counsel who argued these causes had read the record of their testimony, he must have known that any application to review the board’s finding thereon would be futile, a waste of his own time and of his client’s money. If he did not know this, it must have been because he had not familiarized himself with the provisions of the act and the numerous decisions of this court thereon. Without such familiarity, it would seem unwise — to use no harsher word — for counsel to undertake to act for these ignorant aliens and their not much •more intelligent friends here.
The writ is dismissed.