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.
YOUNG CHOW, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Immigration Inspector in Charge at Chicago, Appellee, 1924 — 2 F.2d 1023 · caselaw · US
General
YOUNG CHOW, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Immigration Inspector in Charge at Chicago, Appellee
2 F.2d 1023·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1924
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
YOUNG CHOW, Appellant, v. Howard D. EBEY, Immigration Inspector in Charge at Chicago, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
October 16, 1924.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 12, 1924.)
No. 3443.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
Frank T. Milehrist, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
James A. O’Callaghan, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before EVANS and PAGE, Circuit Judges, and GEIGER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
The Second Assistant Secretary of Labor ordered the deportation of appellant, who now challenges the authority of an Assistant Secretary to make the order. It is customary for the Second Assistant Secretary of Labor to hear and dispose of Chinese deportation cases, and his action in ordering deportation has been sanctioned by various district courts. We agree with the conclusion of Judge Hand, expressed in United States ex rel. Chin Fook Wah v. Dunton (D. C.) 288 F. 959. See, also, Parish v. United States, 100 U. S. 504, 25 L. Ed. 763; M’Collum v. United States. 17 Ct. Cl. 100; Norris v. United States, 257 U. S. 77, 42 S. Ct. 9, 66 L. Ed. 136. The order is affirmed.