Bechard v. Ebey

Seventh Circuit

Bechard v. Ebey

300 F. 558, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 1924

DocketNo. 3371

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 F. 558 (Bechard v. Ebey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bechard v. Ebey, 300 F. 558, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042 (7th Cir. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question here is as to whether appellant can be deported upon no other evidence than his own statements, made under oath while under arrest, charged with violating the Immigration Act.

As required by the rules of the Department of Tabor, appellant, during the hearing, was permitted to inspect the warrant, and was advised that he was entitled to be represented by counsel. He elected to [559]*559proceed without counsel, and was sworn and testified without objection, and the record shows he had a fair hearing.

Deportation proceedings are civil, and not criminal, and under numerous authorities the question will have to be answered in the affirmative. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 44 Sup. Ct. 54, 68 L. Ed.-; Low Foon Yin v. U. S. Imm. Com’r, 145 Fed. 791, 76 C. C. A. 355; U. S. v. Brooks (D. C.) 284 Fed. 908; In re Chan Foo Lin, 243 Fed. 137, 156 C. C. A. 3; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 44 Sup. Ct. 283, 68 L. Ed. ——, opinion filed February 18, 1924. The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The only question here is as to whether appellant can be deported upon no other evidence than his own statements, made under oath while under arrest, charged with violating the Immigration Act.

As required by the rules of the Department of Tabor, appellant, during the hearing, was permitted to inspect the warrant, and was advised that he was entitled to be represented by counsel. He elected to [559]*559proceed without counsel, and was sworn and testified without objection, and the record shows he had a fair hearing.

Deportation proceedings are civil, and not criminal, and under numerous authorities the question will have to be answered in the affirmative. United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U. S. 149, 44 Sup. Ct. 54, 68 L. Ed.-; Low Foon Yin v. U. S. Imm. Com’r, 145 Fed. 791, 76 C. C. A. 355; U. S. v. Brooks (D. C.) 284 Fed. 908; In re Chan Foo Lin, 243 Fed. 137, 156 C. C. A. 3; Mahler v. Eby, 264 U. S. 32, 44 Sup. Ct. 283, 68 L. Ed. ——, opinion filed February 18, 1924. The order of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 F. 558, 1924 U.S. App. LEXIS 3042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bechard-v-ebey-ca7-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack