93 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1937), 8588, Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor

Docket Nº:8588.
Citation:93 F.2d 704
Party Name:WONG GIM NGOON v. PROCTOR et al, Immigration and Naturalization Com'r.
Case Date:December 14, 1937
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 704

93 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1937)

WONG GIM NGOON

v.

PROCTOR et al, Immigration and Naturalization

Com'r.

No. 8588.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 14, 1937

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1938.

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

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

Page 705

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 against 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 the 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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP