Lo Pong v. Dunn

Decision Date10 July 1916
Docket Number4569.
Citation235 F. 510
PartiesLO PONG v. DUNN, Immigration Inspector. [1]
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Byron F. Babbitt, Charles P. Johnson, and Eustace C. Wheeler, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Benjamin L. White, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Arthur L. Oliver, U.S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HOOK and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.

MUNGER District Judge.

The appellant, Lo Pong, a Chinese person, was arrested by the respondent, an immigration inspector, under a warrant issued by the Secretary of Labor, charging him with being found in the United States in violation of section 6 of the Chinese Exclusion Act, as amended by Act July 5, 1884, c. 220, 23 Stat. 116, having secured admission on a fraudulently procured certificate. He was accorded a hearing and a transcript of the proceedings at the hearing was submitted to the Secretary of Labor, who ordered his deportation. Appellant then obtained a writ of habeas corpus, but, on final hearing, the writ was dismissed, and he prosecutes this appeal.

Before leaving China, appellant obtained a certificate of admission from the viceroy at Canton, viseed by the United States consul, certifying that he was a student, and therefore authorized to come within the United States under the provisions of section 6 of the Chinese Exclusion Act as amended by Act of July 5, 1884. He was admitted by the immigration officer at Vancouver, B.C., after an examination and proceeded to San Francisco. At this examination, he stated his age as 18 years, that he had attended school in his native village and at a nearby city for 8 years, and that he intended to attend the Oriental public school at San Francisco, first studying English and then taking a course in mining engineering. He exhibited a bank draft for $500 and had $7 in gold. He remained in San Francisco for two months but attended no school. He claimed to have received lessons at his dwelling room during this period, two or three times a week, from some woman whose name he had forgotten, who did not speak Chinese, and who taught him only as to the English alphabet. Appellant then proceeded to St. Louis, Mo., where he resided for about 2 years and 10 months before the institution of this action. During this time he has attended no school, and claims that he has had no occupation or employment, has earned no money, and has expended that which he brought with him. He claims that he has suffered from a cough and pain in the back for the last two years, and that this disables him from attending school. His examination discloses a number of contradictory statements as to facts within his knowledge, such as his age, his receiving money from China, and his mother's name.

By section 1 of the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902, c. 641, 32 Stat. 176, as amended by section 5 of the Act of April 27, 1904, c. 1630, 33 Stat. 428 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4337), all laws in force on April 29, 1902, regulating, suspending, or prohibiting the coming of Chinese persons into the United States, and the residence of such persons therein, were re-enacted without modification. By section 6 of the Act of Congress of May 6, 1882, c. 126 (22 Stat. 60), as amended by Act July 5, 1884, c. 220 (23 Stat. 116), every Chinese person, other than a laborer, entitled to come to the United States, must obtain the permission of the Chinese government and be identified as so entitled, evidenced by a certificate, viseed by the proper diplomatic or consular representative of the United States. Such certificate is prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein, but may be controverted and the facts therein stated disproved by the United States authorities. Under this statute, the decision of the appropriate immigration officers admitting the alien did not conclude an inquiry as to his right to remain within the United States. Li Sing v. United States, 180 U.S. 486, 490, 21 Sup.Ct. 449, 45 L.Ed. 634; United States v. Pin Kwan, 100 F. 609, 611, 40 C.C.A. 618; United States v. Lau Sun Ho (D.C.) 85 F. 422, 423.

By section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 20, 1907, c 1134, 34 Stat. 904 (Comp. St. 1913, Sec. 4269), as amended by the Act of March 4, 1913, c. 141, 37 Stat. 736, 'any alien who shall enter the United States in violation of law, and such as become public charges from causes existing prior to landing, shall, upon the warrant of the Secretary of Labor, be taken into custody and deported to the country whence he came at any time within three years after the date...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Moy Kong Chiu v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • 2 Octubre 1917
    ......154,. 66 C.C.A. 220; Cheung Him Nin v. United States, 133. F. 391, 66 C.C.A. 453; Ong Seen v. Burnett, 232 F. 850, 147 C.C.A. 44; Lo Pong v. Dunn, 235 F. 510, 149. C.C.A. 56; Lui Hip Chin v. Plummer, 238 F. 763, 151. C.C.A. 613. On the other hand, it is well settled that a. Chinese ......
  • Lo Hop v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 4 Febrero 1919
    ......320 (C.C.A. 7); United States v. Yong Yew, 83 F. 832, 838 (D.C.,. opinion by the late Circuit Judge Adams, then District. Judge); Lo Pong v. Dunn, 235 F. 510, 512, 513, 149. C.C.A. 56 (C.C.A. 8). Indeed, in view of its facts the rule. stated is in effect recognized in Liu Hop Fong v. ......
  • Woo Shing v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 28 Junio 1922
    ...... U.S. 549, 557, 33 Sup.Ct. 585, 57 L.Ed. 960; The Japanese. Immigration Case, 189 U.S. 86, 101-102, 23 Sup.Ct. 611, 47. L.Ed. 721; Lo Pong v. Dunn (C.C.A. 8) 235 F. 510,. 512, 149 C.C.A. 56; Mok Nuey Tau v. White (C.C.A. 9). 244 F. 742, 743, 157 C.C.A. 190. . . The. orders ......
  • United States v. Woo Jan
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 6 Julio 1917
    ...... was by Judge Clarke, by the Circuit Courts of Appeals for the. Eighth Circuit (Lo Pong v. Dunn, 235 F. 510, 149. C.C.A. 56), and for the Third Circuit (Sibray v. United. States, 227 F. 1, 141 C.C.A. 555). In both cases,. certiorari ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT