Hoey Ay Sing v. United States

Third Circuit

Hoey Ay Sing v. United States

227 F. 209, 142 C.C.A. 9, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 28, 1915

DocketNo. 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 227 F. 209 (Hoey Ay Sing v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoey Ay Sing v. United States, 227 F. 209, 142 C.C.A. 9, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296 (3d Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

In the first instance the proceeding in this case was before a United States commissioner under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. .The commissioner ordered the appellant to be de[211]*211ported, and on appeal the District Court affirmed the order. Each tribunal heard and saw the witnesses, and their concurring judgment should not lightly be disturbed. The act of Congress puts the burden on the Chinese person of proving his right to be in the country — in this case, his citizenship — and after carefully reading all the evidence we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the commissioner and the court below that the appellant’s birth in this country has not been established. United States v. Hom Lin (C. C. A. 2d Cir.) 223 Fed. 520; Fong Ping Ngar v. United States (C. C. A. 2d Cir.) 223 Fed. 523.

The order is affirmed, on Judge Thomson’s opinion, which has not been elsewhere reported and will be found in the statement above.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

In the first instance the proceeding in this case was before a United States commissioner under the Chinese Exclusion Acts. .The commissioner ordered the appellant to be de[211]*211ported, and on appeal the District Court affirmed the order. Each tribunal heard and saw the witnesses, and their concurring judgment should not lightly be disturbed. The act of Congress puts the burden on the Chinese person of proving his right to be in the country — in this case, his citizenship — and after carefully reading all the evidence we see no reason to disagree with the conclusion of the commissioner and the court below that the appellant’s birth in this country has not been established. United States v. Hom Lin (C. C. A. 2d Cir.) 223 Fed. 520; Fong Ping Ngar v. United States (C. C. A. 2d Cir.) 223 Fed. 523.

The order is affirmed, on Judge Thomson’s opinion, which has not been elsewhere reported and will be found in the statement above.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 F. 209, 142 C.C.A. 9, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoey-ay-sing-v-united-states-ca3-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack