Lee Chock Hon v. Proctor, 9417.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1940
• Docket Number: No. 9417.,9417.
• Citation: 112 F.2d 246
• Parties: LEE CHOCK HON v. PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

112 F.2d 246 (1940)

LEE CHOCK HON v. PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization.

No. 9417.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

May 28, 1940.

Adam Beeler and Edwards Merges, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellant.

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

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

HEALY, Circuit Judge.

The appeal is from an order denying a writ of habeas corpus, following appellant's exclusion by the immigration authorities at the port of Seattle.

Appellant, a Chinese person, claims to have been born in San Francisco on February 24, 1918. He arrived from China at Seattle in May, 1939, and applied for admission as a native-born citizen of the United States. After a hearing before a board of special inquiry appellant's application for admission was denied. He appealed to the Secretary of Labor, and the order of exclusion was affirmed by the Board of Review.

In support of his claim of citizenship appellant presented a citizen's return certificate (Form 430) with photograph attached, issued by the immigration service at San Francisco September 3, 1919, in the name of Lee Chock Hon. An endorsement thereon showed a departure of the holder on December 27, 1919. It is agreed that if appellant is the person represented in the photograph attached to the citizen's return certificate he is entitled to admission; otherwise, he is not. The immigration authorities decided that he is not the same person; and the only question here is whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.

Appellant himself, his supposed father and mother, and certain of his alleged sisters and brothers, testified in his behalf at the hearing before the Seattle board. Briefly, the showing was that in December, 1919, after the issuance of the citizen's return certificate, appellant was taken to China by his parents, where he remained continuously until his return to the United States in 1939. The parents had meanwhile come back to this country, leaving appellant with relatives.

The photograph attached to the certificate was taken when the individual portrayed was an infant less than two years of age. The members of the local board of inquiry were agreed that a comparison of appellant's appearance with that of the infant represented in the photograph shows that the two are not the same person. The finding appears to rest chiefly on differences in...