Flynn v. Ward, 3088.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 3088.,3088.
• Citation: 82 F.2d 223
• Parties: FLYNN ex rel. DEA TON v. WARD, Com'r of Immigration.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

82 F.2d 223 (1936)

FLYNN ex rel. DEA TON v. WARD, Com'r of Immigration.

No. 3088.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

March 5, 1936.

Walter Bates Farr, of Boston, Mass. (Everett Flint Damon, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

Frank W. Tomasello, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (Francis J. W. Ford, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, WILSON, and MORTON, Circuit Judges.

WILSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court of Massachusetts dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The writ was sought to secure the release of the relator from the custody of the immigration authorities by whom he is held for deportation to China, his application for admission to this country having been denied by the immigration authorities and the Secretary of Labor.

The assignments of error are:

(1) That the District Court erred in denying the petition for the writ.

(2) That the District Court erred in ruling and adjudging in effect that the action of the immigration authorities in denying the admission of Dea Ton to the United States was not arbitrary and unfair.

The law in such cases is well settled. The Immigration Inspector and Board of Special Inquiry and Board of Review created under the Immigration Act in passing on these cases are administrative officials, not courts. Their findings of fact are final and binding on the courts, if supported by any substantial evidence. The courts have before them in these proceedings only questions of law. If a fair hearing is granted the applicant and there is substantial evidence in support of the findings of the Inspector and the Board of Special Inquiry and of the Secretary of Labor, no issue of law is raised before the court. Ngai Kwan Ying v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 62 F.(2d) 166.

The Immigration Inspector in the first instance and the Special Board of Inquiry have an opportunity to see the witnesses and have before them statements made by them at other times; they have long familiarity with the various subterfuges by which Chinese immigrants seek to gain admission in this country as sons of acknowledged citizens.

The alleged father of the applicant, Dea Chung Wing, is an acknowledged citizen of this country. He has made a number of trips back to China over a period of fifty years, and has made statements as to his marriage, family, and place of residence on pre-investigations before departures and on his returns. He now claims to have been married in 1891 or in 1892, and is the father of eight sons. One applicant was admitted as his son in 1909. A second applicant, Dea Bow, applied in 1911 and was denied admission. In 1923 the alleged father returned from China accompanied by four of his alleged sons, including the present applicant, who applied for admission at San Francisco, all of whom were denied admission and were deported. Dea Hong et al. v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 300 F. 727.

The present applicant again came to this country, this time by way of Vancouver, and entered at Boston and applied for admission at that port.

There can be no question but that the applicant was granted a full and fair hearing by the immigration authorities in that they received all the evidence he offered and he was notified of his rights of appeal to the Board of Inquiry and the Secretary of Labor, and his right to have a friend or relative present; and he and his witnesses stated that they understood all the questions asked them through the interpreter.

As to whether there was substantial evidence from which the Inspector and the Board could find that the applicant had not satisfied them that he was the son of the alleged father, it is not a question of what this court, or the District Court, would have found from the evidence, Flynn ex rel. Lum Hand v. Tillinghast (C.C.A.) 62 F.(2d) 308, or when measured by the rules governing courts of law, whether the decisions of the immigration boards were wrong. If there was any supporting evidence for the conclusion of the Board of Special Inquiry and the Board of Review, it must stand. Louie Lung Gooey v. Nagle (C.C.A.) 49 F.(2d) 1016, 1017.

There were numerous discrepancies in the testimony of the father and of the other alleged sons. The father testified in 1900 to an inquiry as to who was living in his house besides his mother in 1895, when another relative visited them in China, and answered, "No one else," from which the immigration authorities held that the inference was that he was not married at...