Edsell v. Mark
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Edsell v. Mark, 179 F. 292 (9th Cir. 1910)
103 C.C.A. 121; 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4637
Edsell v. Mark
Opinion of the Court
The passport issued to the appellee by the Department of State was not evidence of his citizenship. Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy, 34 U. S. 692, 9 L. Ed. 276; In re Gee Hop (D. C.) 71 Fed. 274. With respect to the proceedings before the executive officers concerning the right of appellee to enter the United States on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States, we find nothing in the record indicating that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing.
Upon the authority of the case of United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 Sup. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1010, and In re Tang Tun, 168 Fed. 488, 93 C. C. A. 644, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the proceedings.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- EDSELL, Chinese Inspector v. D. CHARLIE MARK
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Citizens (§ 10*) — Evidence op Citizenship. A passport issued to a Chinese person by the Secretary of State is not evidence of the citizenship of such person in the United States. [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Citizens, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dee. Dig. .§ 10.* Citizenship of the Chinese, see notes to Gee Fook Sing v. United States, 1C. G A. 212; Lee Sing FaT v. United States, 35 C. C. A. 332.] 2. Aliens' (§ 32*) — Chinese Exclusion Act — Review op Order op Deportation-Jurisdiction op Courts. A finding by the immigration officers against the right of a person of the Chinese race to enter the United States, which right was claimed on the ground that the applicant was a native-born citizen, is conclusive, and a court cannot entertain habeas corpus proceedings for his discharge, unless it is shown that he was not given a fair and impartial hearing. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Aliens, Cent. Dig. § 95; Dec. Dig. § 32.*]