In re Ban

21 F.2d 1009, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1514
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York
DecidedOctober 11, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 F.2d 1009 (In re Ban) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Ban, 21 F.2d 1009, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1514 (W.D.N.Y. 1927).

Opinion

ADLER, District Judge.

This is an application for a writ of certiorari for the purpose of reviewing the determination of the Secretary of Labor, who, on January 29,1927, issued a warrant for the deportation of the petitioner to Jugo-Slavia. The petitioner entered the United States from Canada illegally, and was apprehended at Niagara Falls on December 22, 1926. He is a native of Jugoslavia and in or about July, 1924, entered Canada at the port of Halifax, a.nd remained in Canada until he attempted illegal entry into the United States. Thereafter he was released upon $1,000 bail by tho United States immigrant inspector in charge at Buffalo, N. Y. On or about March 25, 1927, he re-entered the Dominion of Canada, where he now is.

This writ is sought for the purpose of determining the validity and legality of the warrant deporting Ban to Jugo-Slavia instead of to Canada.

The first question is, Can the proceedings of the Department of Labor and the warrant of deportation be reviewed by a writ of certiorari?

The questions raised by the petition, and the review of the determination of the Secretary of Labor, can be determined by suing out a writ of habeas corpus. Cegiow v. Uhl, 239 U. S. 3, 36 S. Ct. 2, 60 L. Ed. 114; United States v. Tod (C. C. A.) 1 F.(2d) 246.

The writ of certiorari, which is a discretionary writ at common law, will not issue where the petitioner has a plain and adequate remedy by habeas corpus, or otherwise. In this conclusion I follow the reasoning of Judge Hough in United States v. Rauch (D. C.) 253 F. 814.

It being determined that certiorari cannot properly be invoked in this ease, the questions raised by the petition are not considered.

The petition for the writ is denied.

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

Related

United States Ex Rel. Trinler v. Carusi
166 F.2d 457 (Third Circuit, 1948)
United States ex rel. Trinler v. Carusi
72 F. Supp. 193 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1947)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F.2d 1009, 1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ban-nywd-1927.