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.
UNITED STATES ex rel. CHUMURA v. SMITH, District Director of Immigration, 1927 — 29 F.2d 287 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES ex rel. CHUMURA v. SMITH, District Director of Immigration
29 F.2d 287·United States District Court for the Western District of New York·1927
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. CHUMURA v. SMITH, District Director of Immigration.
District Court, W. D. New York.
June 15, 1927.
Jay T. Barnsdall, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., for petitioner.
Richard H. Templeton, U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y. (Roy P. Ohlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Buffalo, N. Y., of counsel), for respondent.
[MAJORITY — HAZEL, District Judge.]
HAZEL, District Judge.
It appears that the alien was previously arrested under the order of deportation, and subsequently, on writ of habeas corpus, the writ was sustained, and the alien discharged from custody, on the sole ground, however, that he had been detained in jail an unreasonable length of time pending deportation; the ground of his prolonged detention being that the department was unable to deport him to Poland, the country from whence he came, owing to failure to obtain the required passport. The order should have contained a provision retaining the right to renew when the passport was obtained. Its failure to do so, however, in my opinion, does not prevent the government, or the immigration officials, from again renewing proceedings. See United States v. Tod (C. C. A.) 289 F. 761. This should be done on a new warrant, for the relator, on the former hearing, was not heard on other questions submitted, relating to the invalidity of the procedure and warrant. Though admitting his conviction in this country, of an offense for which he was imprisoned for a term of one year or more, the relator denied that the crime was one involving moral turpitude committed within five years after entry, and denied that he was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his entry on September 24,1922.
The writ must therefore be sustained, with permission to begin another proceeding. So ordered.