UNITED STATES of America ex rel. JOE SHEW, Next Friend of Lee Sear She, Relator-Appellant, v. W. L. JAMES, Master, etc., and A. W. Brough, Acting United States Chinese Inspector in Charge at the Port of New York, Respondents-Appellees

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. JOE SHEW, Next Friend of Lee Sear She, Relator-Appellant, v. W. L. JAMES, Master, etc., and A. W. Brough, Acting United States Chinese Inspector in Charge at the Port of New York, Respondents-Appellees. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. April 7, 1924.) No. 297. Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of New York. The opinion of Garvin, District Judge in the court below follows: “Lee Sear She has been brought before the court on a writ of habeas corpus issued upon a petition which alleges that the relator is restrained of his liberty by the master of the steamship Rosalind and by the acting Chinese inspector in charge at the port of New York; it being the contention of the immigration authorities that he is not admissible to the United States and should be deported as a Chinese alien, not a member of any of the exempt classes entitled to come into and remain in the United States. The relator objects to his proposed deportation from the United States to Canada, from whence he came, and asserts,that the reason for his proposed deportation is the refusal of the United States Chinese inspector at New York to entertain and receive relator’s application for admission, to this country, upon the ground that there was a prior refusal or denial of an application made by relator for admission as a citizen, which was followed by his deportation to Canada pursuant -to such denial. The petition further alleges that the previous decision excluding relator was made without due process of law, was accomplished in a summary and arbitrary manner, without a hearing held in accordance with law, and that the relator was deported without opportunity to confer with counsel or take other steps to review the illegal action of the board of special inquiry at the port of New York, which excluded relator without first granting to him a hearing by a board of special inquiry, composed of three members, as required by law. The petition .further alleges that the hearings before the said board of special inquiry were arbitrary and unfair, and that the rights of the relator were prejudiced, and the conclusion reached by the Department of Labor on the evidence submitted was contrary to the evidence and should be set aside; that inadmissible evidence was received upon the hearings before the board, and that the conduct of the hearings was such as to involve manifest abuse of discretion of. departmental officers. It would be advisable for an applicant in a proceeding of this character to tell the truth. The record showed that he was not deported to Canada, but to China, via Canada, and that he left the ship upon which he had been placed by the authorities at Halifax, obviously with assistance and by the improper connivance of some law breaker: Let him comply with sections 3 and 18 of the Immigration Act of .February 5, 1917 (Comp. St. 191S, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 428914 b, 4289}4j). Upon the papers submitted, I do not believe that the board which heard his case was illegally constituted or that he did not have a fair hearing. Writ dismissed.” Miele & Castellano, of New York City (Roger O’Donnell, of Washington, D. O., of counsel), far appellant. Ralph C. Greene, U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y. (Wm. A. De Groot, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States. Before ROGERS, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. Order affirmed.