United States v. CHINESE INSPECTOR, ETC., 209.
Decision Date | 05 January 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 209.,209. |
Citation | 47 F.2d 181 |
Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. SOY SING v. CHINESE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE AT PORT OF NEW YORK. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
James C. Thomas, of New York City, for appellant.
Robert E. Manley, Acting U. S. Atty., and Walter H. Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of New York City, for appellee.
Before MANTON, L. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
The applicant is a Chinese named Sheung Loy, who sought admission to the United States under the provisions of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (8 USCA § 6) as the son of Low Gui Tai, who is an American citizen. The sole issue was that of his parentage.
The applicant is 32 years old, and arrived at the port of New York June 28, 1928. At the hearing before the Board of Special Inquiry, he, his alleged father, and an identifying witness, Soy Sing, testified. He failed to establish his right to enter to the satisfaction of the Board, and its decision denying him admission was affirmed on appeal. The denial was based largely on disregarding the testimony of the alleged father as not worthy of belief because it was in conflict with some of the testimony he had given at Seattle the year before when his right to reenter this country from China was in issue.
As is apparently the custom in these hearings, the testimony took a wide range, and went into rather minute details concerning the village from which the applicant came, the number of houses, rows of houses, location of the house in which he lived, number and location of rooms, windows, and doors, as well as the number, names, description, and relationship of occupants. This no doubt gave the examiners some basis for forming a judgment as to the truth or falsity of the testimony directly bearing on the ultimate fact in issue, for, by a comparison of the testimony given on subjects which each would be likely to know about if the claimed relationship was a fact, some indication could be obtained by the examiners as to the credibility of the witnesses. We are confined to a review which will determine whether or not the applicant has been accorded a fair hearing, United States ex rel. Fong Lung Sing v. Day (C. C. A.) 37 F. (2d) 36; yet this does not alone require that the applicant have an adequate opportunity to produce evidence in support of his claimed right to enter and to meet evidence to the contrary, but requires that all the evidence taken shall be fairly considered, weighed, and applied to decide the real issue rather than to put a premium on the ability to remember alike the inconsequential details of a Chinese village concerning which the examiners know nothing and have no means of knowing, in case of discrepancies, which witness was right and which was wrong. Of course, such discrepancies may have an important bearing on the credibility of witnesses and so weaken their testimony that the vital facts are left unproved and exclusion is warranted. Mason v. Tillinghast (C. C. A.) 27 F.(2d) 580. But we may pass over that part of this case quickly, for the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing before the Board of Inquiry in New York was, as stated in the memorandum of the Board of Review, "in practical agreement." The testimony of the identifying witness, Soy Sing, was of little consequence, for he was born in California and first met the father of the applicant in Canton, China, when the witness was on a visit there in 1922, and testified that at that time the father introduced the witness to his two sons, one of whom was the relator, in a fruit store in Canton.
Low Gui Tai, the alleged father, had been examined in Seattle in October, 1927, by a Board of Special Inquiry, when he was seeking readmission as an American citizen on his return from China.
At New York he testified that he was born in San Francisco June 23, 1875, and, when it was called to his attention that he testified in Seattle that he was born June 4, 1874, said the latter date was correct. At New York he testified that during his last trip to China (he had gone there first as a small boy and returned to this country in 1900) he had no occupation, and, when told that he had testified in Seattle that he had conducted a fruit stand in China which had failed said that was so, and explained his answer that he had no occupation by saying: "Our custom is, when we fail in a business, we do not mention it." He testified that his brother Low Gui Hoy, returned to China in C. R. 8. When told that in Seattle he said that his brother returned in C. R. 6 he testified: "I forgot the exact year, about whether it is one or the other." In New York, he testified that he had been married just once, and that his only wife was Jung Shee, a little over 50 years old, with natural feet, a native of Kar Heung Village; that he married her December 7, 1894; that they had three sons, of whom the applicant, Sheung Loy, is the oldest; and that he was at home when all three of his sons were born. He was immediately asked the following questions and gave the following answers:
At Seattle the witness testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial