delivered the opinion of the court.
On thе 20th of May, 1916, Margaret Ryan, the appellee, alleging herself to be á subject of the King of Great Britain residing in Ottawa, Canada, applied for a writ of habeas corpus to obtain the possession of her alleged minor child, Irean, by taking’her frоm the asserted illegal custody of Anna D. Mattei-s, the appellant, alleged to be a resident of the State of Illinois.
The petition for habeas corpus сharged that the said child was bom to petitioner ten months before in a hospitаl in Ottawa, but shortly after the birth of the child she was kidnapped by the respondent, who secreted her until August when she brought the child by railroad journey to Chicago from Ottawa and there illegally detained her. It was charged that the cause of action аrose under the law of the United. States, in .that the Immigration. Laws of the United States forbade the bringing of an alien child under sixteen years of age from Canada into the Unitеd States without being accompanied by its father or mother, in the absence оf permission by the immigration authorities of the United. States. An order.was’ entered allоwing the prosecution of the habeas corpus proceedings in forma pauperis, and the. writ issued.
The respondent denied the averments of possession and kidnapping. She alleged that she had a child of her own about ten months of age, and that if such child was the one referred to in the petition for habeas corpus, the *377 petitioner had no right to the custody of the same. The existence of any right in the petitioner to champion the enforcement of the Immigration Laws of the United States was deniеd, and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the controversy was expressly challenged.
On the return, after hearing, jurisdiction was maintained, the return was held insufficient, and the petitioner was decreed to be entitled to the custody of the child аnd the appellant was commanded to deliver her. This direct appeal on the question of jurisdiction alone was then taken.
It is settled that “the jurisdiction of сourts of the United States'to issue writs of.
habeas corpus
is limited to cases of persons alleged to be restrained of their libertj" in violation of the Constitution or of some law or treaty, of the United States, and cases arising under the law of nations.”
Carfer
v.
Caldwell,
We are constrained to this conclusion since we аre unable to perceive the possible basis upon which it can be *378 assumed that the local question of maternity, and consequent right to custody, which dominated and controlled the whole issue could be transformed and made federal in character by the assertion concerning the Immigration Laws. And this becomes all the more cogent when the absence of power on the part of the petitioner to champion the enforcement of the Immigration Laws is borne in mind.
Whеther a case might arise where a court, of the United States could take jurisdiсtion of a petition for habeas corpus upon averment of diversity of сitizenship and pecuniary interest, without the assertion of a federal right, does nоt here arise (a) because the suit was brought exclusively under the assumption that it was governed by the law of the United States which requires a federal question to give jurisdiction, and (b) because, in any event, there is here no averment of jurisdictional amount.
It follows that the decree below must be and it is
Reversed and the case remanded'with directions to dismiss the writ of habeas corpus.