Skip to main content
· 10/25/1915

Gegiow v. Uhl

Citations

  • 239 U.S. 3
  • 36 S. Ct. 2
  • 60 L. Ed. 114
  • 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1532

Syllabus

<p>The courts haye jurisdiction to determine whether the reasons given by the Commissioner of Immigration for excluding aliens under the Alien Immigration Act agree with the requirements of the Act; and, if the record shows that the Commissioner exceeded his powers, the alien may obtain his release upon habeas corpus.</p> <p>The Alien Immigration Act by enumerating conditions upon which aliens may be denied admission prohibits the denial of admission in other cases.</p> <p>The conclusiveness of the decisions of immigration officers under § 25 of the Immigration Act is conclusiveness of questions of fact; but the court may review the findings of a Commissioner on the question of whether the alien comes under the Act. (ronzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1.</p> <p>An alien cannot be excluded under the Alien Immigration Act simply because the immigration officers declare that he may become a public charge on account of overstocked conditions of the labor market at the point of immediate destination.</p> <p>Under § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act, the ground of exclusion of persons enumerated are permanent personal objections irrespective of local conditions.</p> <p>A phrase contained 'in a list such as that of disabilities in § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act is to be read as genetically similar to the others mentioned before and after.</p> <p>The Alien Immigration Act deals with admission of aliens to the United .States and not to particular points of destination therein.</p> <p>Where the determination of a class of questions covered by a statute is left to the President, this court will not presume that a greater power is entrusted by implication to subordinate officers or that the same result can be effected under the guise of a decision.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • granting habeas and rejecting the immigration service’s interpretation of the statutory term “entry”
  • rejecting, on habeas, executive branch's interpretation of \public charge\ ground of exclusion
  • “The courts are not forbidden by the [finality] statute to consider whether the reasons, when they are given, agree with the requirements of the act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.