77 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1935), 7674, Wong Ying Wing v. Proctor

Docket Nº:7674.
Citation:77 F.2d 135
Party Name:WONG YING WING v. PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration.
Case Date:May 06, 1935
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 135

77 F.2d 135 (9th Cir. 1935)

WONG YING WING

v.

PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration.

No. 7674.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 6, 1935

Proceeding by Wong Ying Wing for a writ of habeas corpus to Marie A. Proctor, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of Seattle. From an order denying the petition, petitioner appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division; John C. Bowen, Judge.

Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash. (Walter H. Newton, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for appellant.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and F. A. Pellegrini, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., and Owen P. Hughes, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash. (J. P. Sanderson, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, of Seattle, Wash., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

On May 29, 1934, Wong Ying Wing, a Chinese, applied for admission into the United States as a native-born citizen thereof, having left the United States in 1932 to make a trip to China. On August 5, 1930, he applied to the United States Immigration officials at Minneapolis for a citizen's return certificate for the purpose of proving a citizenship status and facilitating his readmission to the United States at the termination of a contemplated visit to China. This application was duly investigated, was denied, and disapproved by the Assistant Commissioner of Immigration on August 21, 1930, on the ground that the appellant had not proved his claim of birth in this country. On January 12, 1931, the Secretary of Labor, after further examination, dismissed appellant's appeal from this decision on the ground that appellant had not proved his claim of birth in this country. Notwithstanding this action, appellant left the United States January 9, 1932, and returned May 29, 1934. He was given the usual hearing before a Board of Special Inquiry at the Seattle Immigration Station on his application for admission into the United States as a native-born citizen thereof, which was denied, for the reason that he had failed to prove his claim of birth in the United States; that he was not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa; that he is an alien ineligible to citizenship, not a member of any of the classes...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP