§

In the Matter of K---- H---- C

5 I&N Dec. 312 (B.I.A. 1953)
In the Matter of K---- H---- C

13 Cited authorities

  1. Shaughnessy v. Mezei

    345 U.S. 206 (1953)   Cited 633 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an excluded alien's indefinite detention on Ellis Island did not violate constitutional law because “he is treated as if he stopped at the border”

  2. Morgan v. United States

    304 U.S. 1 (1938)   Cited 634 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is "not the function of the court to probe the mental processes of the Secretary"

  3. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding

    344 U.S. 590 (1953)   Cited 282 times
    Holding that an alien who permanently resided in the United States was "a person within the protection of the Fifth Amendment" and therefore was entitled to due process

  4. Goldman v. United States

    316 U.S. 129 (1942)   Cited 359 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding the warrantless use of a detectaphone

  5. Tang Tun v. Edsell

    223 U.S. 673 (1912)   Cited 103 times
    In Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U.S. 673, 681, 32 S. Ct. 359, 363 (56 L. Ed. 606), it was held that the Secretary might at all times take cognizance of the records of the official files, "and," said the court, "it would be extraordinary indeed to impute bad faith or improper conduct to the executive officers, because they examined the records or acquainted themselves with former official action."

  6. Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson

    273 U.S. 352 (1927)   Cited 40 times

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. 68. Argued December 9, 10, 1926. Decided February 21, 1927. 1. A hearing before a Board of Special Inquiry, in an immigration proceeding, was not rendered unfair by mere delay in its commencement; nor by the absence of a friend or relative of the applicant for entry, when the applicant waived his right in that regard; nor by the introduction before the Board of testimony previously taken by an inspector, where the

  7. United States v. Trudell

    284 U.S. 279 (1932)   Cited 28 times

    CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. No. 162. Argued December 9, 1931. Decided January 4, 1932. 1. Under the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, § 13(a), (b), and the executive regulations pursuant thereto, an alien who was lawfully domiciled in this country but who went abroad for a temporary visit, cannot reenter unless he has either an immigration visa or a return permit. P. 280. 2. In habeas corpus to determine the right of an alien to enter the country, the burden

  8. Bauer v. Acheson

    106 F. Supp. 445 (D.D.C. 1952)   Cited 17 times
    Finding that "refusal to renew passport without an opportunity to be heard, was without authority of law"

  9. United States v. Schneiderman

    106 F. Supp. 892 (S.D. Cal. 1952)   Cited 13 times
    Striking of evidence

  10. Rue v. Feuz Const. Co., Inc.

    103 F. Supp. 499 (D.D.C. 1952)   Cited 8 times

    Civ. A. 2825-50. February 25, 1952. Ralph R. Sachs, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff. Colladay Colladay, J. Richard Earle, all of Washington, D.C., for garnishee. KEECH, District Judge. This case is before the court on objections to proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment, and on a motion by the garnishee to reopen the case for further testimony on its behalf. The backglound of the case is, briefly: The plaintiff Rue, who holds a judgment in the sum of $4,500 against the defendant

  11. Section 1.1 - Applicability

    8 C.F.R. § 1.1   Cited 158 times
    Providing that LPR status terminates upon the entry of a final order of removal