Lee Leong v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Lee Leong v. United States

217 F. 48, 133 C.C.A. 34, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 6, 1914

DocketNo 2331

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 F. 48 (Lee Leong v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee Leong v. United States, 217 F. 48, 133 C.C.A. 34, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417 (9th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is not specified in the.petition for the writ wherein or in what respect the appellant was denied a fair and impartial hearing. The allega[49]*49tions in that respect are not sufficient to sustain jurisdiction to issue the writ.

[2] But counsel for the appellant urge that the decision was contrary to law, in that the immigration officers denied to the certificate of birth that consideration which in law it was entitled to receive. The certificate was issued under an act of the Legislature of Hawaii approved April 17, 1911, which provides in substance that the secretary of the territory of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to' such person a certificate showing that fact. It provides that the application shall be on sworn petition and accompanied by affidavits of witnesses, and that the secretary may examine under oath any applicant or persons cognizant of the facts regarding the application, and it further provides that any certificate so issued shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Two grounds may be suggested on which it should be held that there was no error in denying to the certificate a controlling effect on the hearing. In the first place, no act of the territory of Hawaii can avail to affect the laws of the United States in regard to the emigration of aliens. Williams v. United States, 137 U. S. 113, 11 Sup. Ct. 43, 34 L. Ed. 590. In the second place, assuming that the certificate of the secretary of the territory of Hawaii was, as the law declared it to be, prima facie evidence of the facts recited, there is in the record ample evidence to justify the immigration officers in ruling that the prima facie presumption was overcome. This was the conclusion of the court below, and we find no error therein. Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 168, 22 Sup. Ct. 795, 46 L. Ed. 1108.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] It is not specified in the.petition for the writ wherein or in what respect the appellant was denied a fair and impartial hearing. The allega[49]*49tions in that respect are not sufficient to sustain jurisdiction to issue the writ.

[2] But counsel for the appellant urge that the decision was contrary to law, in that the immigration officers denied to the certificate of birth that consideration which in law it was entitled to receive. The certificate was issued under an act of the Legislature of Hawaii approved April 17, 1911, which provides in substance that the secretary of the territory of Hawaii may, whenever satisfied that any person was born within the Hawaiian Islands, cause to be issued to' such person a certificate showing that fact. It provides that the application shall be on sworn petition and accompanied by affidavits of witnesses, and that the secretary may examine under oath any applicant or persons cognizant of the facts regarding the application, and it further provides that any certificate so issued shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

Two grounds may be suggested on which it should be held that there was no error in denying to the certificate a controlling effect on the hearing. In the first place, no act of the territory of Hawaii can avail to affect the laws of the United States in regard to the emigration of aliens. Williams v. United States, 137 U. S. 113, 11 Sup. Ct. 43, 34 L. Ed. 590. In the second place, assuming that the certificate of the secretary of the territory of Hawaii was, as the law declared it to be, prima facie evidence of the facts recited, there is in the record ample evidence to justify the immigration officers in ruling that the prima facie presumption was overcome. This was the conclusion of the court below, and we find no error therein. Lee Lung v. Patterson, 186 U. S. 168, 22 Sup. Ct. 795, 46 L. Ed. 1108.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F. 48, 133 C.C.A. 34, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-leong-v-united-states-ca9-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack