Wong Wey v. Johnson, 2138.

• Decision Date: 21 October 1927
• Docket Number: No. 2138.,2138.
• Citation: 21 F.2d 963
• Parties: WONG WEY v. JOHNSON, Commissioner of Immigration.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

21 F.2d 963 (1927)

WONG WEY v. JOHNSON, Commissioner of Immigration.^*

No. 2138.

Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

October 21, 1927.

Joseph F. O'Connell, of Boston, Mass. (James F. Meagher, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

John W. Schenck, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (Frederick H. Tarr, U. S. Atty., of Gloucester, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.

Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

JOHNSON, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts from an order discharging a writ of habeas corpus issued upon a petition alleging that the appellant, Wong Cheu Dong, was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by the appellee, the United States Commissioner of Immigration. The appellant was an applicant for admission to the United States as the foreign-born son of a native-born citizen, Wong Wey, whose citizenship was conceded.

The applicant, Wong Cheu Dong, and his witnesses, were heard by a Board of Special Inquiry at Boston, and he was ordered excluded on the ground that the claimed relationship to the alleged father had not been reasonably established. An appeal was taken from this decision and the applicant was furnished with a copy of the testimony taken before the board.

Upon representations to the Department of Labor by counsel for the applicant, the case was reopened for the purpose of taking additional evidence, and the Board of Special Inquiry took and considered the additional evidence, and on the 14th day of May, 1926, again ordered the applicant excluded.

An appeal was then taken to the Secretary of Labor, and the case was heard and considered by the Board of Review sitting at Washington, the applicant being represented by counsel. The Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry and ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was then filed by the applicant in the District Court, which ordered the petition dismissed and the writ discharged, and the relator remanded to the custody of the United States Commissioner of Immigration at Boston.

The only question of which the District Court had jurisdiction was whether the relator was accorded a fair hearing by the immigration authorities. If he was accorded a fair hearing, and the action of the immigration authorities was not arbitrary, then the District Court was without jurisdiction to hear the case upon its merits. It is not...