U.S. Supreme Court
Gegiow v. Uhl, 239 U.S. 3 (1915)
Gegiow v. Uhl
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided October 25, 1915
239 U.S. 3
The courts have 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, chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and, if the record shows that the Commissioner exceeded his powers, the alien may obtain his release upon habeas corpus.
The Alien Immigration Act, by enumerating conditions upon which aliens may be denied admission, prohibits the denial of admission in other cases.
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. Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U. S. 1.
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.
Under § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act, the ground of exclusion of persons enumerated are permanent personal objections irrespective of local conditions.
A phrase contained in a list such as that of disabilities in § 1 of the Alien Immigration Act is to be read as generically similar to the others mentioned before and after.
The Alien Immigration Act deals with admission of aliens to the United States, and not to particular points of destination therein.
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.
215 F.5d 3 reversed.
The facts, which involve the construction of the Alien Immigration Act and the power of the Commissioner of Immigration to exclude aliens on the ground of likelihood of their becoming a public charge, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary