Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor, 8588.

Decision Date05 January 1938
Docket NumberNo. 8588.,8588.
Citation93 F.2d 704
PartiesWONG GIM NGOON v. PROCTOR et al., Immigration and Naturalization Com'r.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

John L. McNab and S. C. Wright, both of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and Gerald Shucklin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash. (J. P. Sanderson, of Seattle, Wash., Immigration and Naturalization Service, on the brief), for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HANEY, Circuit Judges.

HANEY, Circuit Judge.

The court below denied a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by appellant, and from the order denying the writ this appeal was taken.

Appellant is a Chinese boy about 14 years old, who arrived at the port of Seattle on September 30, 1936. He applied for entry into the United States on the ground that he is an alleged foreign-born son of Wong Mon Fay, an alleged native-born citizen of the United States. On October 19, 1936, a Chinese boy named Wong Suey Tung arrived at the same port, and applied to be admitted into the United States as a foreign-born son of Wong Toy, an alleged native-born citizen of the United States. Both applications were considered as a single case. Hearings began on November 16, 1936.

Appellant testified that Wong Mon Fay was his father, who was born in the United States; that his father's parents were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, who were living in Ock Sing village in China; that his father (Wong Mon Fay) had only one brother and one sister; that Lim Shee had bound feet; and that the windows in the bedroom in their house in China had no glass.

On the same day the other applicant testified that Wong Toy had four brothers and no sisters; that the parents of Wong Toy, who lived in Hoy Ping city in China, were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, the latter having released feet.

The applications were then referred to the immigration office in St. Paul, Minn., for the taking of further testimony.

On behalf of appellant, Wong Mon Fay, on December 1, 1936, testified that he was born in San Francisco; that his parents were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, who were living in Ock Sing village in China; that the latter had natural feet; that the windows in the bedrooms of his house in China had no glass; that he had only one brother and one sister; and that Wong Toy was not related to him. On the same day, the alleged first and second sons of Wong Mon Fay testified to the same effect.

On December 4, 1936, Wong Toy testified on behalf of the other applicant, that he was born in San Francisco; that he had three brothers and three sisters; that his parents were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, who were living in Hoy Ping city in China; and that Lim Shee had natural feet. Regarding the testimony of Wong Mon Fay that Wong Toy was not his brother nor a son of Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, Wong Toy stated: "He said that because he is mad at me." On the same day, Wong Toy's alleged first son testified that Wong Toy was born in San Francisco, and had three brothers; that Wong Toy's parents were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, who were living in Hoy Ping city in China.

The immigration officer who had examined all the witnesses in St. Paul, on December 5, 1936, wrote:

"As will be noted by the transcript, testimony taken from Wong Mon Fay and his two alleged sons Wong Gim Poy and Wong Gim Toung and all questions were answered in detail and corroborated that given by the applicant Wong Gim Ngoon in practically all respects. All three witnesses made an excellent impression and gave their testimony readily without hesitation. The witnesses Wong Toy and Wong Kim Pang, however, made a very poor impression and testimony was obtained with considerable difficulty. As will be noted by transcript, very little of the testimony given by these two latter witnesses is in agreement with that given by applicant Wong Suey Tung.

"At time of hearing, witness Wong Mon Fay again stated that Wong Toy was not his blood brother and that he was not the son of Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee. Wong Toy, however, insists that Wong Mon Fay is his blood brother. In view of the unsatisfactory showing made by Wong Toy and his alleged son Wong Kim Pang, it would appear that Wong Mon Fay is telling the truth."

Transcripts of the testimony taken in St. Paul were sent to the immigration office in Seattle. On December 11, 1936, the alleged third son of Wong Mon Fay testified that the latter had one brother and one sister, and that all three were born in San Francisco; that Wong Mon Fay's parents were Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee who were living in Ock Sing village in China; that Lim Shee had natural feet; and that the bedroom windows in their house in China had no glass.

On January 28, 1937, appellant was called before the Board of Special Inquiry and testified in response to questions as follows:

"Q. Will you again state what kind of feet, your paternal grandmother, Lim Shee, has? A. Natural feet.

"Q. Why did you state on your original examination that she had bound feet? A. She has bound feet * * *

"Q. Did you ever see your paternal grandmother Lim Shee, walking outside and around the house? A. Yes.

"Q. How did her manner of walking compare with your walking? A. She walked much slower than I, in a crippled manner like other bound-feet women.

"Q. Did you ever see the bindings on your paternal grandmother's feet? A. Yes."

At that time appellant also testified:

"Q. Have you any statement to make or do you desire to correct any of your testimony? A. I wish to say there is glass in the windows of my house.

"Q. When was this glass put in or how long has it been in the outside windows of your house? A. It has been there ever since I can remember.

"Q. How did you happen to remember at this time that there was glass in the windows of your house? A. After the original examination, I thought it over and remembered there was glass in the windows."

The Board of Special Inquiry considered with the evidence hereinbefore related, its files concerning Wong Mon Fay and his alleged prior-landed sons, and the files concerning Wong Toy and his alleged prior-landed son and daughter, and also its files concerning Wong Ying Wing, an alleged brother of Wong Mon Fay.

Wong Mon Fay departed for China on November 7, 1902, and returned therefrom on October 11, 1903. At the hearing on his application for entry into the United States, he and his alleged parents, Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, all testified that the alleged parents had only three children, all of whom were born at 16½ Waverly place in San Francisco, and who consisted of two sons, Wong Mon Fay and Wong Ying Wing, and a daughter. All of the witnesses testified that Lim Shee had natural feet. Wong Mon Fay was admitted as a citizen.

Wong Mon Fay departed for China on September 4, 1907, and returned on July 27, 1911. At that time he made a sworn statement that he was born in San Francisco. He was admitted as a citizen and was issued a certificate of identity.

On March 29, 1918, Wong Mon Fay made application for a citizen's return certificate and made a sworn statement that he was born in San Francisco, and that he had three brothers, including Wong Ying Wing and Wong Toy, and two sisters. His application was denied, whereupon he submitted an affidavit stating that his alleged mother, Lim Shee, had told him that both the alleged parents had falsely testified that they were the parents of four boys and three girls, and that unless he, Wong Mon Fay, so testified, "he would have heaped upon him all the disadvantages which it would be possible for angry parents to inflict on a son who had disobeyed their instructions"; that because of such parental threat he swore falsely in regard to the number of his brothers and sisters. He thereupon requested that the case be reopened, which request was denied on November 14, 1919. The alleged parents departed for China in 1920, and have not returned.

On March 7, 1921, Wong Mon Fay made another application for a citizen's return certificate, and testified on May 16, 1921, that he was born at 16½ Waverly place in San Francisco; that he had only one brother, Wong Ying Wing, and one sister; that Wong Toy was not the son of the parents nor his brother; and that his mother had natural feet. On that date two unrelated friends testified on his behalf. The application was denied on May 25, 1921, but an appeal to the Commissioner General was sustained. Wong Mon Fay departed for China on August 10, 1921 and returned January 13, 1926, bringing with him an alleged son.1 Subsequently an alleged second son,2 and an alleged third son3 have arrived in the United States from China.

Wong Mon Fay has testified several times on behalf of his alleged sons. He also testified on behalf of his alleged brother, Wong Ying Wing.4

In addition to the testimony hereinbefore outlined, there has been additional testimony to the effect that the parents of Wong Mon Fay have been living in Ock Sing village in China and that Lim Shee, the alleged mother of Wong Mon Fay, has natural feet;5 that Wong Mon Fay had only one brother and one sister;6 that Wong Mon Fay was born in the United States;7 that the bedroom windows in Wong Mon Fay's house in China had glass.8 On August 5, 1930, and on June 27, 1934, Wong Mon Fay testified that he testified falsely in 1918 with respect to the number of his brothers and sisters because of his mother's request. On June 27, 1934, he also testified that Wong Toy was not his brother.

The file concerning Wong Toy shows that he departed for China on April 13, 1905, and returned therefrom on September 10, 1906. At that time the alleged parents, Wong Hung Gee and Lim Shee, and Wong Toy all testified that the parents had seven native-born children, all born at 845 Washington street in San Francisco, consisting of four sons and three daughters. The sons named included Wong Toy, Wong Mon Fay, and Wong Ying Wing. Wong Toy was thereupon admitted as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Heitland v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 27 January 1977
    ...INS, 385 U.S. 276, 282, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966); Masamichi Ikeda v. Burnett, 68 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1933); Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor, 93 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1937), who in this case obviously preferred to believe that Mr. Heitland was "admitted N/C" in order "to pass thru the U.S. ......
  • Ruth v. Climax Molybdenum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 4 February 1938
  • Lee Chock Hon v. Proctor, 9417.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 28 May 1940
    ...authorities are final if supported by any substantial evidence. Del Castillo v. Carr, 9 Cir., 100 F.2d 338, 339; Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor, 9 Cir., 93 F. 2d 704; Gee Nee Way v. McGrath, 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 326 decided April 19, 1940. Appellant does not claim he was denied a fair opportunity to......
  • Woon Sun Seung v. Proctor, 8749.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 24 October 1938
    ...it is not sufficient that we might have reached a different decision. * * *" In addition, the following statement from Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor, 9 Cir., 93 F.2d 704, 708, must be kept in mind: "* * * This court has repeatedly said that the credibility of witnesses is a matter to be determi......

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