Takaji Mukai v. Burnett

Ninth Circuit

Takaji Mukai v. Burnett

62 F.2d 355, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3175

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1932

DocketNo. 6888

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 F.2d 355 (Takaji Mukai v. Burnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Takaji Mukai v. Burnett, 62 F.2d 355, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3175 (9th Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Takaji Mukai, entered the United States in April, 1925. At that time he had no immigration visa and was not entitled to enter the United States. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 S. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. 199; section 13 (e), Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA 213(e). He is subject to deportation under section 14 of the Immigration Act of 19214 (8 USCA § 214). Appellant contends that the deportation proceeding is barred by reason of the fact that more than five years have expired from the time of his first entry, which occurred more than five years prior to the initiation of the deportation proceeding. In support of his contention he re[356]*356lies upon the provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 USCA § 155), and the amendment contained in section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924. This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48, 51 S. Ct. 358, 75 L. Ed. 833, and U. S. v. Vanbiervliet, 284 U. S. 590, 52 S. Ct. 132, 76 L. Ed. —-. See, also, United States ex rel. Leo Stapf v. Corsi, 53 S. Ct. 40, 77 L. Ed. —-, decided by the Supreme Court November 7, 1932; Hendriksen v. Weedin, 61 F.(2d) 1030, decided by this court November 16, 1932.

Order affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Takaji Mukai, entered the United States in April, 1925. At that time he had no immigration visa and was not entitled to enter the United States. Ozawa v. United States, 260 U. S. 178, 43 S. Ct. 65, 67 L. Ed. 199; section 13 (e), Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA 213(e). He is subject to deportation under section 14 of the Immigration Act of 19214 (8 USCA § 214). Appellant contends that the deportation proceeding is barred by reason of the fact that more than five years have expired from the time of his first entry, which occurred more than five years prior to the initiation of the deportation proceeding. In support of his contention he re[356]*356lies upon the provisions of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (8 USCA § 155), and the amendment contained in section 14 of the Immigration Act of 1924. This contention has been decided adversely to the appellant in Philippides v. Day, 283 U. S. 48, 51 S. Ct. 358, 75 L. Ed. 833, and U. S. v. Vanbiervliet, 284 U. S. 590, 52 S. Ct. 132, 76 L. Ed. —-. See, also, United States ex rel. Leo Stapf v. Corsi, 53 S. Ct. 40, 77 L. Ed. —-, decided by the Supreme Court November 7, 1932; Hendriksen v. Weedin, 61 F.(2d) 1030, decided by this court November 16, 1932.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 F.2d 355, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 3175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/takaji-mukai-v-burnett-ca9-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack