Quan Wing Seung v. Nagle

Ninth Circuit

Quan Wing Seung v. Nagle

41 F.2d 58, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2727

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 1930

DocketNo. 6085

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 41 F.2d 58 (Quan Wing Seung v. Nagle) 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

Quan Wing Seung v. Nagle, 41 F.2d 58, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2727 (9th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Quan Tin Sing applied for writ of .habeas corpus on behalf of his alleged son, Quan Wing Seung. The alleged son was bom August 12, 1912. The alleged father had never seen the alleged son until he arrived in San Francisco. In 1911 the alleged father testified that he had no children, whereas in 1925 • he testified that he had a son, Quan Km Wing, who was bom in 1906, and who was then seeking admission as his son. The record is replete with alleged discrepancies, but, in view of the false testimony given by the father in an effort to secure the admission of an alleged son, we cannot say that a fair hearing was denied because the immigration authorities did not believe his testimony in the present instance.

Judgment affirmed.

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

WILBUR, Circuit Judge.

Quan Tin Sing applied for writ of .habeas corpus on behalf of his alleged son, Quan Wing Seung. The alleged son was bom August 12, 1912. The alleged father had never seen the alleged son until he arrived in San Francisco. In 1911 the alleged father testified that he had no children, whereas in 1925 • he testified that he had a son, Quan Km Wing, who was bom in 1906, and who was then seeking admission as his son. The record is replete with alleged discrepancies, but, in view of the false testimony given by the father in an effort to secure the admission of an alleged son, we cannot say that a fair hearing was denied because the immigration authorities did not believe his testimony in the present instance.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F.2d 58, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quan-wing-seung-v-nagle-ca9-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack