Murakami v. Burnett

Ninth Circuit

Murakami v. Burnett

63 F.2d 641, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 20, 1933

DocketNo. 6963

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 F.2d 641 (Murakami v. Burnett) 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

Murakami v. Burnett, 63 F.2d 641, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516 (9th Cir. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1. In exclusion, as distinguished from deportation proceedings, the law is settled that there is no absolute right to a judicial determination of a claim to citizenship. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; United States ex rel. Scimeca v. Husband (C. C. A. 2, 1925) 6 F.(2d) 957.

2. The question' for determination was not whether Tsutako Murakami is a citizen of the United States, but whether the applicant for admission was in fact Tsutako Murakami. It is unnecessary to enumerate the diserepanties between the testimony of appellant and that of her alleged father before the Board of Special Inquiry; it suffices to say that in our judgment they were as to material matters hearing on the family. Appellant, age 17 years'at the time of her arrival, claims American citizenship by birth in this country. She came as a steerage passenger; her alleged father as a second-class passenger on the saíne vessel. Their testimony differed materially, among other things, as to the name and age of her alleged younger sister; there was some difference even after the alleged father had passed her a note, which she destroyed and which the' Board could well believe was intended to cause her to change her testimony.

The Board was justified on the record in believing that both she and the alleged father had testified falsely, and that she was not his daughter.

Judgment dismissing the writ of habeas corpus affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

1. In exclusion, as distinguished from deportation proceedings, the law is settled that there is no absolute right to a judicial determination of a claim to citizenship. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; United States ex rel. Scimeca v. Husband (C. C. A. 2, 1925) 6 F.(2d) 957.

2. The question' for determination was not whether Tsutako Murakami is a citizen of the United States, but whether the applicant for admission was in fact Tsutako Murakami. It is unnecessary to enumerate the diserepanties between the testimony of appellant and that of her alleged father before the Board of Special Inquiry; it suffices to say that in our judgment they were as to material matters hearing on the family. Appellant, age 17 years'at the time of her arrival, claims American citizenship by birth in this country. She came as a steerage passenger; her alleged father as a second-class passenger on the saíne vessel. Their testimony differed materially, among other things, as to the name and age of her alleged younger sister; there was some difference even after the alleged father had passed her a note, which she destroyed and which the' Board could well believe was intended to cause her to change her testimony.

The Board was justified on the record in believing that both she and the alleged father had testified falsely, and that she was not his daughter.

Judgment dismissing the writ of habeas corpus affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 F.2d 641, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 3516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murakami-v-burnett-ca9-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack