Gegiow v. Uhl

Syllabus.

by them under the Constitution, by refusing as prayed, to return papers taken from them under a search warrant and in permitting the papers over objection to be offered in evidence. There is no bill of exceptions in the record and nothing which enables us to lawfully ascertain the existence of the constitutional questions relied upon.

Clune v. United States, 159 U. S. 590; Metropolitan R. R.

Co. v. District of Columbia, 195 U. S. 322; Porto Rico v.

Emanuel, 235 U. S. 251, 255.

There is nothing, therefore, before us unless there be merit in contentions to the contrary which are pressed and which we briefly dispose of. First: On the face of things it is obvious that the postponing at the last term of the consideration of a motion to dismiss was not a

Even indulging, for the sake of the argument only, in the assumption of the correctness of the proposition urged that an extraordinary discretion might exist in some ex- treme case to supply the entire absence of a bill of excep- tions, we see no ground whatever for the premise that this is a case of that character.

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

No. 340. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.-Decided October 25, 1915.

The courts have jurisdiction to determine whether the reasons given by the Commissioner of Immigration for excluding aliens under the Allen Immigration Act agree with the requirements of the Act;

Argument for Petitioners.

and, if the record shows that the Commissioner exceeded his powers, the alien may obtain his release upon habeas corpus.

The Alien Immigration Act by enumerating conditions upon which aliens may be denied admission prohibits the denial of admission in other cases.

The conclusiveness of the decisions of immigraiion officers under § 25 of the Immigration Act is conclusiveness of questions of fact; but the court may review the findings of a Commissioner on the ques- tion of whether the alien comes uider the Act. Gonzales v. Williams,

An alien cannot be excluded under the Alien Immigration Act simply because the immigration officers declare that he may become a public charge on account of overstocked conditions of the labor market at the point of immediate destination.

Under § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act, the ground of exclusion of persons enumerated are permanent personal objections irrespective of local conditions.

A phrase contained 'in a list such as that of disabilities in § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act is to be read as generically similar to the others mentioned before and after.

The Alien Immigration Act deals with admission of aliens to the United

.States and not to particular points of destination therein.

Where the determination of a class of questions covered by a statute is left to the President, this court will not presume that a greater power is entrusted by implication to subordinate officers or that the same result can be effected under the guise of a decision.

215 Fed. Rep. 573, reversed.

THE facts, which involve the construction of the Alien Immigration Act and the power of the Commissioner of Immigration to exclude aliens on the ground of likeli- hood of their becoming a public charge, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Max J. Kohler and Mr. Morris Jablow, with whom Mr. Abram I. Elkus and Mr. Ralph Barnett were on the

Alien immigrants are entitled to -due prooess of law under the Fifth Amendment, and under § 25 of the Immi- gration Law, and generally under our treaties with foreign

Argument for Petitioners.

countries.

It is a denial of due process of law to deny proper hearing or to order deportation on undisclosed assumption of controverted facts and denial of oppor- tunity to meet them, and grave irregularities on the hear- ing of the appeal thereon, as it is also where there is no competent evidence whatsoever justifying an ex- clusion.

Even as regards matters that may be judicially noticed, without formal proof, the matter relied upon must* be specifically referred to on the trial, and produced, so that the immigrant may know what is relied upon to exclude him, and can meet it by proof.

Even if boards of special inquiry have the powers of courts, to take judicial notice of facts which courts might notice judicially, when properly presented before them, still even courts cannot notice judicially such facts as are here involved, under the authorities governing judicial notice, especially on the basis of alleged newspaper re- ports, not produced or even identified.

to The immigration authorities are not authorized exclude aliens on. the supposed ground of unfavorable industrial conditions in the place to which they are des- tined, because such factor is not one vested in the im- migration authorities by Congress as a justifiable ground for exclusion, nor are the petty immigration officials com- petent to pass upon such uncertain and complicated, ever-varying, conditions; nor is any satisfactory method of apprising them of the same provided by law; nor on the other hand, are the immigrants wedded to any par- ticular destination, but are quite certain to go to a place economically more desirable than their original proposed destination, if conditions in the latter place so suggest.

Where the courts on habeas assume jurisdiction to review an order of exclusion, they are themselves to determine the question of admissibility, and not merely to remand relator for a new hearing to the immigration authorities.

Argument for Respondent.

Congress has power to make the fact of a favorable administrative decision the condition of entry of aliens, withholding from the courts jurisdiction to review the evidence on which the decision is based.

Congress has complete power to exclude all aliens and to determine the conditions of their entry. Lapina v.

Williams, 232 U. S. 78, 88; United States v. Ju Toy, 198

The administrative determination made the condition of entry need not be based upon a hearing at which the alien has an opportunity to present evidence. Buttfield

v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470; Oceanic Navigation Co. v.

Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320; Origet v. Hedden, 155 U. S.

228.

When Congress has made a favorable administrative decision the sole and indispensable condition precedent to entry, and has declared an adverse decision to be final, the courts have no power to review the evidence upon which the latter is based. Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 660.

In the Immigration Act Congress has made the fact of the decision by immigration officials the sole condition of entry. The fact of the decision being established, any inquiry into the evidence is improper.

The act by § 25 declares that the adverse administra- tive decision shall be final. Pearson v. Williams, 202

The statute imports that want of any sustaining evi- dence shall not of itself constitute a ground for judicial impeachment of the adverse administrative decision.

The officers do not lose exclusive jurisdiction by judging all the evidence erroneously. Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8, 13; Harlan v. McGourin, 218 U. S. 442.

Want of any sustaining evidence in the record does not per se establish fraud or lack of good faith. Gregory v.

Argument for Respondent.

White, 213 Fed. Rep. 768; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, supra.

Under this act the courts have no jurisdiction to review the evidence. Fok Yung Yo v. United States, 185 U. S.

296; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698; Gregory v. White, supra; Lee Gon Yung v. United States, 185 U. S. 306; Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 175; Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538; Nishimura Ekiu

v. United States, supra.

Cases under statutes providing for administrative pro- ceedings of a different kind are not applicable. Int. Com.

Comm. v. Louis. & Nash. R. R., 227 U. S. 88; Lewis v.

Frick, 233 U. S. 291; American School v. McAnnulty, 187

U. S. 94; Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272.

Petitioners' contentions that they had no opportunity to cross-examine opposing witnesses or to know the evi- dence against them, or to rebut opposing evidence, are not valid.

The Immigration Act does not entitle the alien to con- front and cross-examine witnesses.

The hearing provided in the act need not be such that the alien has opportunity to know adverse evidence and rebut it.

The evidence before the board supports their determina- tion that petitioners were likely to become a public charge.

Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470; Chicago lRy. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U. S. 585; Chin Yow v. United States, 208 U. S. 8; Coyne Publishing Co. v. Paine, 194 U. S. 497; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96

U. S. 97; Ex parte Gregory, 210 Fed. Rep. 680; Fok Yung

Yo v. United States, 185 U. S. 296; Fong Yue Ting v.

United States, 149 U. S. 698; Glasgow v. Moyer, 225 U. S.

420; Gregory, Matter of, 219 U. S. 210; Harlan v. Mc- Gourin, 218 U. S. 442; Healy v. Backus, 221 Fed. Rep.

358; Interstate Com. Comm. v. L. & N. R. R., 227 U. S. 88; Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86; Lapina v. Wil-

Opinion of the Court.

liams, 232 U. S. 78; Lee Gon Yung v. United States, 185

U. S. 306; Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 168; Lem Moon

Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538; Lewis v. Frick, 233

U. S. 291; Low Wah Suey v. Backus, 225 U. S. 460; Nishi-

mura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651; Oceanic Nav- igation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320; Origet v. Hedden, 155 U. S. 228; Pearson v. Williams, 202 U. S. 281.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the court.

The petitioners are Russians seeking to enter the United States. They have been detained for deportation by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration and have sued out a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was dismissed by the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals.

211

Fed. Rep. 236. 215 Fed. Rep. 573. 131 C. C. A. 641. By the return it appears that they are part of a group of illiterate laborers, only one of whom, it seems, Gegiow, speaks even the ordinary Russian tongue, and in view of that fact it was suggested in a letter from the Acting Com- missioner to the Commissioner General that their ig- norance tended to make them form a clique to the detri- ment of the community; but that is a trouble incident to the immigration of foreigners generally which it is for legislators not for commissioners to consider, and may be laid on one side. The objection relied upon in the return is that the petitioners were "likely to become public charges for the following, among other reasons: That they arrived here with very little money, [$40 and $25, re- spectively,] and are bound for Portland, Oregon, where the reports of industrial conditions show that it would be impossible for these aliens to obtain employment; that they have no one legally obligated here to assist them; and upon all the facts, the said aliens were upon the said grounds duly excluded" &c. We assume the report to be candid, and, if so, it shows that the only ground for

Opinion of the Court.

the order was the state of the labor market at Portland at that time; the amount of money possessed and ig- norance of our language being thrown in only as make- weights. It is true that the return says for that.' among other reasons.' But the state of the labor market is the only one disclosed in the evidence or the facts that werb noticed at the hearing, and the only one that was before the Secretary of Labor on Appeal; and as the order was general for a group of twenty it cannot fairly be interpreted to stand upon reasons undisclosed. Therefore it is un- necessary to consider whether to have the reasons dis- closed is one of the alien's rights. The only matter that we have to deal with is the construction of the statute with reference to the present case.

The courts are not forbidden by the statute to consider whether the reasons, when they are given, agree with the requirements of the act. The statute by enumerating the conditions upon which the allowance to land may be denied, prohibits the denial in other cases. And when the record shows that a commissioner of immigration is ex- ceeding his power, the alien may demand his release upon habeas corpus. The, conclusiveness of the decisions of immigration officers under § 25 is conclusiveness upon matters of fact. This was implied in Nishimura Ekiu v.

United States, 142 U. S. 651, relied on by the Government.

As was said in Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1, 15, "as Gonzales did not come within the act of 1891, the Com- missioner had no jurisdiction to detain and deport her by deciding the mere question of law to the contrary." Such a case stands no better than a decision without a fair hearing, which has been held to be bad. Chin Yow v.

United States, 208 U. S. 8. See further Zakonaite v. Wolf, 226 U. S. 272. Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291, 297.

The single question on this record is whether an alien can be declared likely to become a public, charge on the ground that the labor market in the city of his immediate

Opinion of the Court.

In the act of February 20, destination is overstocked.

1907, c. 1134, § 2; 34 Stat. 898; as amended by the act of March 26, 1910, c. 128, § 1; 36 Stat. 263, determining who shall be excluded, 'Persons likely to become a public charge' are mentioned between paupers and professional beggars, and along with idiots, persons -dangerously diseased, persons certified by the examining surgeon to have a mental or physical defect of a nature to affect their ability to earn a living, convicted felons, prostitutes and so forth. The persons enumerated in short are to be excluded on the ground of permanent personal objections accompanying them irrespective of local conditions unless the one phrase before us is directed to different considera- tions than any other of those with which it is associated.

Presumably it is to be read as generically similar to the others mentioned before and after.

The statute deals with admission to the United States, not to Portland, and in § 40 contemplates a distribution of It would be an amazing immigrants after they arrive. claim of power if commissioners decided not to admit aliens because the labor market of the United States was overstocked. Yet, as officers of the General Government, they would seem to be more concerned with that than with the conditions of any particular city or State. Detri- ment to labor conditions is allowed to be considered in § 1, but it is confined t6 those in the continental territory of the United States and the matter is to be determined by the President. We cannot suppose that so much greater a power was entrusted by implication in the same act to every commissioner of immigration, even though subject to appeal', or that the result was intended to be effected in the guise of a decision that the aliens were likely to become a public charge.

Order reversed.