Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff

Decision Date29 June 1940
Docket NumberNo. 9418.,9418.
Citation112 F.2d 607
PartiesNGIM AH OY v. HAFF, Dist. Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Walter F. Lynch, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., and R. B. McMillan and L. R. Mercado, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before GARRECHT, HANEY, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.

HANEY, Circuit Judge.

Being denied admission into the United States and held for deportation by appellee, appellant brings this appeal to review an order of the court below denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Appellant sought admission into the United States as the foreign-born daughter of Ngim Lin, an alleged citizen of the United States. In addition to applicant's testimony, five witnesses testified on her behalf.

Ngim Lin, the alleged father, first arrived from China, at San Francisco on May 3, 1915. In the following October, he was issued a citizen's return certificate, and was readmitted as a citizen upon his return from the Territory of Hawaii a year later. At that time he was asked how many children he had ever had, and he replied "One boy — no girls". He also testified that the boy was named Ngim Tai, and that he was born December 5, 1915 (old calendar) or October 29, 1915 (new calendar). The alleged father applied for a citizen's return certificate and in support thereof testified on September 19, 1922, that he had one boy and one girl, who were twins, born on February 4, 1916 (old calendar) or January 2, 1916 (new calendar); that his son's name was Ngim Tai and that the name of his daughter (the alleged applicant here) was Ngim Yee. When the discrepancies in the testimony on the two different occasions were called to the alleged father's attention, he testified that when he testified in 1916, he was asked if he had a boy, but was not asked if he had a girl; that he did not testify in 1916 that he had no girls; and that as to the date of birth, he was misunderstood in 1916.

The alleged father, Ngim Lin, testified on December 7, 1934, in support of his application for predetermination of his citizenship status. He then testified that the twins were born on January 2, 1916; that his son's name was Ngim Jung Hon, and that the name of his daughter (the alleged applicant) was Ngim Ah Oy, the name appellant now claims, and that neither child had any other name than the one given except an indefinite one meaning "twin".

The applicant testified that she was the daughter of Ngim Lin and was born on January 2, 1916; that she was 22 years years old, but later said she was 23 years old.

Ngim Tin, an alleged paternal uncle of the applicant, testified for her that she was the daughter of Ngim Lin, but the witness admitted he had never seen the applicant. Whoe Tong, an alleged maternal uncle, testified for applicant that applicant's mother was his half-sister, and that she had written him of the birth of twins in 1916, but the witness admitted he had never seen the applicant.

Witness Lan Wai Yee, who is unrelated to applicant, testified that she had met applicant in China, and after the witness had arrived in this country, applicant's alleged father told the witness that applicant was his daughter. Witness Young Muey, unrelated to applicant, testified that he had met applicant twice in China.

A Board of Special Inquiry denied applicant admission into the United States, which decision was affirmed on appeal to the Secretary of Labor Applicant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied, hence this appeal.

Appellant makes a number of contentions, all to the effect that the immigration authorities were wrong in refusing to believe evidence for applicant, or in weighing the evidence. It is unnecessary to state the contentions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Corrales-Vazquez
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 24, 2019
    ...by immigration officials" and "open for inspection." Aldana , 878 F.3d at 882 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 235.1(a) ); see Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff , 112 F.2d 607, 608 (9th Cir. 1940) ; Kaneda v. United States , 278 F. 694, 696–97 (9th Cir. 1922).4 And as a literal matter, entering the United States withou......
  • O'CONNELL v. Ward
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 10, 1942
    ...9 Cir., 79 F.2d 881, certiorari denied 298 U.S. 665, 56 S.Ct. 746, 80 L.Ed. 1389; Flynn v. Ward, 1 Cir., 82 F.2d 223; Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 607, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 686, 61 S.Ct. 63, 85 L.Ed. 443. Since neither this Court nor the District Court can substitute its judgm......
  • Papagianakis v. The Samos
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • December 20, 1950
    ...that the provisions of the law had been observed. "Italia" Societa Anonima Di Navigazione v. Durning, 2 Cir., 115 F.2d 711; Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 607. It is argued that the detention order was void because of the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.A. § 10......
  • Ex parte Zuniga, Civ. No. 1545.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • August 19, 1954
    ...upheld. O'Connell ex rel. Kwong Han Foo v. Ward, 1 Cir., 126 F.2d 615; Gin Soon Ging v. Carmichael, 9 Cir., 123 F.2d 72; Ngim Ah Oy v. Haff, 9 Cir., 112 F.2d 607; Won Ying Loon v. Carr, 9 Cir., 108 F.2d After due consideration of all of the testimony adduced herein, the documentary evidence......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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