Ex Parte Cahan

3 Citing cases

  1. Ranieri v. Smith

    49 F.2d 537 (7th Cir. 1931)   Cited 9 times
    In Ranieri v. Smith (C.C.A.) 49 F.2d 537, the court held that the evidence used to obtain a warrant against the alien was admissible at the hearing, and that there was no requirement that the preliminary testimony be signed or sworn to. There was no denial on the part of the petitioner that he had received part of the earnings of this woman in her nefarious trade.

    This proceeding was thereupon instituted and a record of the above facts submitted to the court, and it dismissed the petition. By the appeal two questions are raised: (1) Was there any competent evidence to support the findings of the immigration authorities? (2) Was the hearing unfair? Ex parte Cahan (D.C.) 42 F.2d 664. Alien insists that the hearing was unfair for the following reasons: (1) The preliminary statements of witnesses were not competent evidence.

  2. Cahan v. Carr

    47 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1931)   Cited 12 times

    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Central Division of the Southern District of California; Paul J. McCormick, Judge. Habeas corpus by Charles Hazlitt Cahan, Jr., against Walter E. Carr, District Director, United States Immigration Service at Los Angeles, Cal. Order denying the writ [ 42 F.2d 664], and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.

  3. United States v. Chan Nom Gee

    47 F.2d 758 (W.D. Wash. 1931)   Cited 3 times

    In the present proceeding the statements made in answer to the inspector's questions were admissible in evidence. Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460, 469-470, 32 S. Ct. 734, 56 L. Ed. 1165; Ng Kai Ben v. Weedin (C.C.A.) 44 F.2d 315; Ex parte Keizo Kamiyama (C.C.A.) 44 F.2d 503; Ex part Ematsu Kishimoto (C.C.A.) 32 F.2d 991; Chan Wong v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 17 F.2d 987; Seif v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 14 F.2d 416; Mok Nuey Tau v. White (C.C.A.) 244 F. 742; Ah Lin v. United States (C.C.A.) 20 F.2d 107; United States v. Hung Chang (C.C.A.) 134 F. 19; Bak Kun v. United States (C.C.A.) 195 F. 53; Toy Dip v. United States (C.C.A.) 198 F. 603; Guiney v. Bonham (C.C.A.) 261 F. 582, 8 A.L.R. 1282; Ex part Ah Sue (D.C.) 270 F. 356; Ex parte Cahan (D.C.) 42 F.2d 664. Many of the above-cited cases were habeas corpus proceedings brought following executive orders of deportation.