Gambroulis v. Nash

8 Citing cases

  1. Lindsey v. Dobra

    62 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1932)   Cited 9 times

    4 F.2d 778; Yip Wah v. Nagle (9 C.C.A.) 7 F.2d 426. The credibility of witnesses and the weight of the testimony is for them, and is not reviewable on habeas corpus. Ex parte Parianos (9 C.C.A.) 23 F.2d 918; Gambroulis v. Nash (8th C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 49. If there is evidence to sustain the charge, the decision of the Secretary of Labor as to the weight of the proof must be accepted by the courts as conclusive. U.S. v. Uhl (2d C.C.A.) 211 F. 628; U.S. ex rel. Georgian v. Uhl (2d C.C.A.) 271 F. 676; Wallis v. U.S. (5th C.C.A.) 230 F. 71. The judgment is reversed, with direction to remand the alien to the custody of appellant.

  2. United States v. Olson

    47 F.2d 1070 (8th Cir. 1931)   Cited 2 times

    A deportation proceeding is not of a criminal nature. Gambroulis v. Nash, 12 F.2d 49, 51, this court. This bond was given under the statute (USCA title 8, § 156), which does not require signature of the alien thereon, and is in the nature of a custody or delivery bond. It is a contract between the United States on one hand and the signers thereof on the other.

  3. Jew Mook ex rel. Jew Wing Lung v. Tillinghast

    36 F.2d 39 (1st Cir. 1929)   Cited 1 times

    We think that no fair and reasonable mind could reach these conclusions; that the case falls within the principles hitherto laid down in this and other courts in such cases as Johnson v. Ng Ling Fong, 17 F.2d 11; Fong Tan Jew v. Tillinghast, 24 F.2d 632; Mason v. Tillinghast, 27 F.2d 580; Nagle v. Wong Ngook Hong, 27 F.2d 650; Ng Yuk Ming v. Tillinghast, 28 F.2d 547; Chin Gim Sing v. Tillinghast, 31 F.2d 763; Nagle v. Dong Ming, 26 F.2d 438; Wong Sik Wye v. Nagle, 33 F.2d 226; Ging Yow v. Nagle, C.C.A. (9th Cir.) September, 1929. Compare, also, Whitfield v. Hanges, 222 Fed. 745; United States ex rel. Sinclair v. Smith, 33 F.2d 914; Gambroulis v. Nash, 12 F.2d 49, 51. The result is that the decision of the immigration authorities must be found to be unfair and unwarranted, the writ must issue, and the applicant be admitted as the real son of Jew Mook.

  4. United States v. Burmaster

    24 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1928)   Cited 22 times
    Concealing assets belonging to trustee in bankruptcy

    " Plaintiff never complained of any unfairness, and his testimony, both at the deportation hearing and at the trial of this case, was frankly and freely given. The hearing was fairly conducted. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 44 S. Ct. 54, 68 L. Ed. 221; Gambroulis v. Nash (C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 49. Moreover, the facts in this case are not in controversy. 5. The Congress has plenary power to prescribe terms of admission into the United States for all aliens.

  5. Hays v. Sesto

    12 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 1926)   Cited 3 times

    Ungar et al. v. Seaman (C.C.A.) 4 F.2d 80; Svarney v. United States (C.C.A.) 7 F.2d 515; Gambroulis v. Nash, 12 F.2d 49 (opinion of this court, filed March 16, 1926). The charges as set forth in the warrant are "that he has been found managing a house of prostitution, that he has been found connected with the management of a house of prostitution, and that he has been found receiving, sharing in, or deriving benefit from the earnings of a prostitute."

  6. United States v. Smith

    33 F.2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    The discharge of petitioner is urged on various grounds, only one of which need be noticed, as, in the view of the court, it is decisive of the case. The contention is made that the petitioner did not have a fair hearing. It is fundamental that the alien is entitled to a fair hearing before the Department of Labor. As was said by the court in the case of Gambroulis v. Nash (C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 49, 51: "Deportation is a matter of such serious moment that the hearing before the officer to whom that duty is entrusted under the statutes must be manifestly fair and in good faith." In the case of Kwock Jan Fat v. White, 253 U.S. 454, 40 S. Ct. 566, 567, 64 L. Ed. 1010, the court say: "It is fully settled that the decision by the Secretary of Labor, of such a question as we have here, is final, and conclusive upon the courts, unless it be shown that the proceedings were `manifestly unfair,' were `such as to prevent a fair investigation,' or show `manifest abuse' of the discretion committed to the executive officers by the statute (Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U.S. 460 [ 32 S. Ct. 734, 56 L. Ed. 1165]), or that `their authority was not fairly exercised, that is, consistently with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law.'"

  7. Ex Parte Jurgans

    17 F.2d 507 (D. Minn. 1927)   Cited 10 times
    In Ex parte Jurgans (D.C.) 17 F.2d 507, a Russian was ordered deported, and warrant of deportation issued, dated February 12, 1920, and writ of habeas corpus dismissed February 16, 1927 (want of diplomatic relations notwithstanding).

    "Findings of fact in deportation proceedings, supported by substantial evidence, will not be reviewed, in absence of fraud or mistake." Gambroulis v. Nash (C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 49; Hays v. Sesto (C.C.A.) 12 F.2d 698. It is contended that the hearing was unfair for the following reasons: That, in the conduct of the hearing, the attorney for the alien was not permitted to make motions or objections to procedure, the jurisdiction, the law, or the evidence, nor to make any record thereof; that practically all of the testimony taken on the hearing, outside of the alien's own, was hearsay and documentary evidence, that was itself hearsay or introduced and attached by reference only to the records of the proceedings, without opportunity granted to the alien to examine the same, or object to it, and without any foundation being laid for its admission; that the alien was arrested without a warrant; that he was denied the assistance of counsel for his defense, and was not confronted by the witnesses, or the evidence upon which the order of deportation was based; that he had no notice of the charge against him.

  8. Ex parte Yee Gee

    17 F.2d 653 (N.D. Cal. 1927)   Cited 2 times

    " Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U.S. 272, 274, 33 S. Ct. 31, 57 L. Ed. 218. "If the hearing be fair, though summary, it is conclusive, and is not to be set aside by the courts," if not reversed on appeal. Christy v. Leong Don (C.C.A.) 5 F.2d 135, 136. "It is fully settled that the decision by the Secretary of Labor, * * * is final and conclusive upon the courts, unless it be shown that the proceedings were `manifestly unfair' were `such as to prevent a fair investigation,' or show `manifest abuse' of the discretion committed to the executive officers by the statute (Low Wah Suey v. Backus [ 225 U.S. 460, 32 S. Ct. 734, 56 L. Ed. 1165], supra), or that `their authority was not fairly exercised; that is, consistently with the fundamental principles of justice embraced within the conception of due process of law' (Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U.S. 673, 681, 682, 32 S. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 606)." Gambroulis v. Nash, 12 F.2d 49 at page 51; Mah Shee v. White, 242 F. 868 (C.C.A. 9); Chew Hoy Quong v. White, 249 F. 869 (C.C.A. 9). Yee Gee is a laborer, of a class excluded by the Chinese laws. But this is not his first entry, and the long record of his domicile in this country, with the clean open records of his prior trips to China and prompt entry on return within time, will not be regarded lightly or disregarded, to allow slight seeming discrepancies which are as well viewed on the printed record as honest inadvertences, to form the foundation for exclusion.