Ow Yeong Yung v. Dulles, 30361.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 30361.,30361. |
| Parties | OW YEONG YUNG v. DULLES, Secretary of State. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Jackson & Hertogs, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
L. H. Burke, U. S. Atty., and C. E. Collett, Asst. U. S. Atty., San Francisco, for defendant.
It appears from the record that Ow Yeong Yung, the alleged father of the plaintiff, was admitted to the United States as a citizen thereof by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on February 9, 1918; that said Ow Yeong Yung made two subsequent trips to China, the first in 1929. In 1930, while in China, he married Kwon Bon Jun. In 1935 plaintiff was born of this union. Having returned to this country in 1941, Ow Yeong Yung again left for China in 1946, returning in 1951 with his wife and one of his children (plaintiff's sister).
Kwon Bon Jun, the alleged mother of plaintiff, testified that she was admitted to this country as the lawful wife of Ow Yeong Yung. In support of this claim she presented an alien registration card which verified the facts pertaining to her admission. Her further testimony concerned the birth of plaintiff, that Ow Yeong Yung fathered the child, and that plaintiff's sister entered the country with her parents without any objections whatsoever.
The plaintiff identified Kwon Bon Jun as his mother, and Ow Yeong Yung as his father. He further testified to placing his application with the Consul at Hong Kong, and answering all questions asked of him to the best of his ability.
The records of the Consulate Office, introduced into evidence, show that the application for a passport had been refused because plaintiff had failed to sufficiently identify himself as the son of an American citizen.
The evidence presented in this case is much stronger than necessary to establish a prima facie showing of the claimed relationship. The court heard the eyewitness testimony of the father and mother concerning the birth of plaintiff. It is not disputed that the alleged father was in China at the time of conception and birth. In addition the exhibits include sworn affidavits and pictures as proof of identity. The Consul's refusal to issue the passport was based on what it deemed certain major discrepancies, most impressive of which was plaintiff's lack of knowledge of his family background, and his contradictions of several statements attributed to his alleged father. The Consul also felt that plaintiff appeared to be a number of years older than his claimed age.
It is not surprising that a person may look much older than he actually is, and without further proof mere appearance is not a sufficient criterion for judging a person's age. In view of plaintiff's youth, and subject as he was to the strange surroundings of the consulate office, it is not surprising that he did not remember all of the details of his family. Letter perfect answers to all of the examiner's questions would more readily lead this court to the conclusion that plaintiff was an imposter reciting memorized material.
The testimony offered clearly establishes the claimed relationship. The government did not attempt to refute this affirmative showing. The courts have held that where no contradictory evidence is offered, unsupported allegations are not sufficient to overcome a prima facie showing. Wong Kam Chong v. U. S., 9 Cir., 111 F.2d 707; Leong Kwai Yin v. U. S., 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 738; Fong Lum Kwai v. U. S., 9 Cir., 49 F.2d 19.
During the course of this proceeding, defendant moved for dismissal of the action on three grounds:
1. That this court does not have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.A. § 903 to declare the nationality of a foreign born person who has never been in the United States.
2. That the plaintiff was not denied a right or privilege on the ground that he was not a national of the United States.
3. That the question is now moot as the plaintiff was issued a document permitting him to proceed to the United States.
Defendant's first objection is that this action does not fall within the purpose and intent of 8...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tijerina v. Brownell, Civ. A. No. 8113.
...agency simply refused to recognize the plaintiff's claim of citizenship. Lee Wing Hong v. Dulles, 7 Cir., 214 F. 2d 753; Ow Yeong Yung v. Dulles, D.C., 116 F.Supp. 766; Nuspel v. Clark, D.C., 83 F.Supp. 963; Wong Ark Kit v. Dulles, D.C., 127 F.Supp. 871. In Chin Wing Dong v. Clark, D.C., 76......
- Newburgh Moire Co. v. Superior Moire Co.
-
Yung Jin Teung v. Dulles
...when it is clear that the applicant cannot produce it. Wong Ark Kit v. Dulles, D.C.D.Mass.1955, 127 F.Supp. 871; Ow Yeong Yung v. Dulles, D.C.N.D. Cal.1953, 116 F.Supp. 766. On the other hand if a delay in acting on an application is entirely the fault of the applicant, then such delay woul......
-
Wong Ark Kit v. Dulles, Civ. A. No. 52-1437.
...proof was insufficient to warrant issuance of a passport. Lee Wing Hong v. Dulles, 7 Cir., 214 F.2d 753, 576-757; Ow Yeong Yung v. Dulles, D.C., N.D.Cal., 116 F.Supp. 766, 768. It may even be sufficient if petitioner shows that the Consul unreasonably delayed a final decision and held "in a......