Chu King Foon v. United States

• Decision Date: 01 November 1911
• Docket Number: 32.
• Citation: 191 F. 822
• Parties: CHU KING FOON v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

191 F. 822

CHU KING FOON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 32.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 1, 1911

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

Thomas F. Phelan, for appellant.

George B. Curtiss, U.S. Atty. (Harry E. Owen, Asst. U.S. Atty., of counsel), for the United States.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

COXE Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York (179 F. 995), finding that the appellant is a Chinese laborer unlawfully in the United States and directing that he be deported to the Empire of China.

The appellant resisted deportation upon the ground that he was born in the United States. He was sworn before the commissioner and produced as witnesses two other Chinese persons, who gave testimony tending to show that he was born in San Francisco, his father and mother being, respectively Jew Hing and Li She. In answer to this testimony the United States offered in evidence a statement made by the appellant to Inspector Wiley, through a Chinese interpreter, in which the appellant states, inter alia, as follows:

'I am 31 years old. I came to the United States about 15 years ago. I entered at the port of San Francisco. My home village in China is Low Village, Sun Woey District. I was born in San Francisco, and lived there 15 years. I forget where I was born in San Francisco. I don't remember where I was living during the 15 years. I do not remember the names of any streets in San Francisco. My father's name is Chu Ngoon May; my mother's name is Lum She.'

There is much more to the same effect.

This testimony is inconsistent with the testimony given before the commissioner. Both cannot be true. The contradictions as to the names of his parents, the date of his birth and other improbable statements discredit his testimony and the commissioner was justified in disregarding it. The testimony in its most favorable aspect for the appellant presents a conflict. The commissioner saw and heard the witnesses and was much better qualified than an appellate court to determine their credibility. His decision on the facts should not be disturbed.

In the case of Chin Bak Kan, 186 U.S. 193, at page 201, 22 Sup.Ct 891, at page 895, 46 L.Ed. 1121, the court says:

'We are of the opinion that we cannot properly re-examine the facts already determined by

...