Wong Ying Wing v. Proctor, 7674.
| Citation | 77 F.2d 135 |
| Decision Date | 06 May 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 7674.,7674. |
| Parties | WONG YING WING v. PROCTOR, Commissioner of Immigration. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Edward H. Chavelle, of Seattle, Wash. (Walter H. Newton, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for appellant.
J. Charles Dennis, U. S. Atty., and F. A. Pellegrini, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Seattle, Wash., and Owen P. Hughes, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Tacoma, Wash. (J. P. Sanderson, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, of Seattle, Wash., on the brief), for appellee.
Before WILBUR, GARRECHT, and DENMAN, Circuit Judges.
On May 29, 1934, Wong Ying Wing, a Chinese, applied for admission into the United States as a native-born citizen thereof, having left the United States in 1932 to make a trip to China. On August 5, 1930, he applied to the United States Immigration officials at Minneapolis for a citizen's return certificate for the purpose of proving a citizenship status and facilitating his readmission to the United States at the termination of a contemplated visit to China. This application was duly investigated, was denied, and disapproved by the Assistant Commissioner of Immigration on August 21, 1930, on the ground that the appellant had not proved his claim of birth in this country. On January 12, 1931, the Secretary of Labor, after further examination, dismissed appellant's appeal from this decision on the ground that appellant had not proved his claim of birth in this country. Notwithstanding this action, appellant left the United States January 9, 1932, and returned May 29, 1934. He was given the usual hearing before a Board of Special Inquiry at the Seattle Immigration Station on his application for admission into the United States as a native-born citizen thereof, which was denied, for the reason that he had failed to prove his claim of birth in the United States; that he was not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa; that he is an alien ineligible to citizenship, not a member of any of the classes specified in section 13 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924 (8 USCA § 213 (c). From this decision of the Board applicant appealed to the Secretary of Labor who dismissed the appeal and directed that appellant be returned to China. A petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Washington, Northern Division, was denied, from which order this appeal is taken.
Appellant testified that he was born at 16½ Waverly place in San Francisco, Cal., November 11, 1899; that a brother, Wong Moon Fay, born September 24, 1884, and a sister, Wong Yee Gook, born in March, 1896, at the same address; that the sister died in 1918 leaving one daughter; that he has never heard from his sister's husband or child since the sister died; that he lived in the United States all his life until his departure for China January 9, 1932. From appellant's testimony in this case it appears that appellant never saw nor kept in touch with his alleged brother from the time he left San Francisco in 1915 until he went to Minneapolis where the alleged brother lived.
Appellant testified that he lived in the house in Waverly place in San Francisco until the earthquake and fire of 1906 when he moved with his parents to Oakland where they remained for one year, when they returned to San Francisco where he lived until 1915 at 812 Washington street, with his parents, and that he never lived at 845 Washington street, as was testified to in another hearing in 1906 by the alleged parents and by one Wong Toy, as will be explained later. Appellant further claims to have been in Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1917, that he registered for the draft in that year, but upon investigation no record can be found in the War Department of such registration. He claims he lost his registration card.
The testimony of the alleged parents and an alleged brother given in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grace Bros. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
...which conclusions of a board on exclusion based upon contradictions in the testimony of a single witness were upheld. Wong Ying Wing v. Proctor, 9 Cir., 1935, 77 F.2d 135; Ng Heu Yim v. Bonham, 9 Cir., 1935, 79 F.2d 655; Lum Sha You v. United States, 9 Cir., 1936, 82 F.2d 83. In giving effe......
-
Wong Gim Ngoon v. Proctor, 8588.
...for the same reasons set forth by the Board of Special Inquiry. The Board of Review believed "that there is judicial warrant in the Wong Ying Wing decision, supra, for judging this case in the light of the whole record with the sole purpose of preventing a perpetuation of fraud." A comparis......