United States Ex Rel. Scimeca v. Husband

(after stating the facts as above). Tbe lower court was entitled and required to pass upon tbe legality of wbat tbe Executive Department bad done, and that was also tbe limit of its duty. It was error to hold what was a new hearing on new evidence as to certain of the facts. We passed on this point in Bieloszyka’s Case, 3 F. (2d) 551 (opinion filed November 3, 1924). We do not, therefore, consider the affidavits filed in the District Court.

Undoubtedly the Department of Labor held that Seimeea was an alien; but it did not hold that there was not a child baptized as Vincenzo Scimeca and bom in…