30 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1929), 5590, Ex parte Wong Nung
|Citation:||30 F.2d 766|
|Opinion Judge:||DIETRICH, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||Ex parte WONG NUNG. v. CARR, District Director, United States Immigration Service. WONG NUNG|
|Attorney:||J. Edward Keating and Theodore E. Bowen, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant. Samuel W. McNabb, U.S. Atty., and Gwyn S. Redwine, Asst.U.S. Atty., both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before RUDKIN and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges, and BEAN, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||February 18, 1929|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California; William P. James, Judge.
Habeas corpus by Wong Nung against Walter E. Carr, District Director of District No. 31, United States Immigration Service, to contest validity of deportation order. Relief was denied, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
At all the times herein mentioned Wong Hin was a Chinese merchant lawfully domiciled in the United States. In the court below he instituted this proceeding by a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to test the validity of an order made by the immigration officers, directing the deportation of Wong Nung, his minor son. Relief was denied, and he brings this appeal.
On October 25, 1921, Wong Nung, then five years of age, came with his mother from China, where he was born, and was admitted
to the United States as the minor child of a domiciled Chinese merchant. Between two and three years later, while he was attending the public schools in Los Angeles, it was discovered by the public health officers that he was suffering from nodular leprosy, and on April 8, 1924, he was admitted for treatment to the Los Angeles General Hospital, where he was cared for at public expense. He remained there as a public charge until September 23, 1926, when he was released as a 'noninfective,' to return to his home, but in less than two months, on November 16th, he was readmitted to the hospital, where he again became a public charge.
In the meantime, on March 17, 1925, the assistant superintendent of the hospital reported the case to the appellee, who thereupon instituted deportation proceedings, and on April 9, 1925, the Secretary of Labor issued a warrant directing that the boy be taken into custody and be required to show cause why he should not be returned to China, upon the ground (1) that he was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his entry; and (2) that he had become a public charge within five years after his entry 'from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent thereto. ' By the administrative officers both grounds were sustained, but it is necessary here to consider only the second. In point of law it is predicated...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP