United States v. Yin Liu and Four Other Cases

Second Circuit

United States v. Yin Liu and Four Other Cases

190 F.2d 400, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2435

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 10, 1951

Docket279280-279283, Dockets 22016-22020

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 F.2d 400 (United States v. Yin Liu and Four Other Cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Yin Liu and Four Other Cases, 190 F.2d 400, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2435 (2d Cir. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, natives of China, entered the United States lawfully between July 29, 1926, and April 4, 1932, under the provisions of Article II of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and China of 1880, 22 Stat. 826, 827, as unmarried minor children of merchants who had entered before July 1, 1924. As such, they were entitled to enter for permanent residence. Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 336, 45 S.Ct. 539, 69 L.Ed. 985; Haff v. Yung Poy, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 203. Such an entry complies with Section 329(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 729(b), and qualifies, pro tanto, the appellees for naturalization. United States v. Yung Poy, 9 Cir., 177 F.2d 144; Jow Gin v. U. S., 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 299; United States v. Lee Cheu Sing, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 534.

In the certificate of arrival issued to each appellee by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on its printed form, the printed statement that the entry was for permanent residence was stricken out, and in its stead was inserted a notation that the entry was made under Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 203(6), as the child of a treaty merchant. Since the facts are undisputed, the appel-lees are entitled to have their certificates of arrival amended to show entries for permanent residence.

Although the evidence that Lee Woon is the husband of an American citizen is rather meagre, it is sufficient to prevent its recognition from being clearly erroneous.

The order of the District Court is modified to amend the several certificates of arrival in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, it is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellees, natives of China, entered the United States lawfully between July 29, 1926, and April 4, 1932, under the provisions of Article II of the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and China of 1880, 22 Stat. 826, 827, as unmarried minor children of merchants who had entered before July 1, 1924. As such, they were entitled to enter for permanent residence. Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle, 268 U.S. 336, 45 S.Ct. 539, 69 L.Ed. 985; Haff v. Yung Poy, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 203. Such an entry complies with Section 329(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, 8 U.S.C.A. § 729(b), and qualifies, pro tanto, the appellees for naturalization. United States v. Yung Poy, 9 Cir., 177 F.2d 144; Jow Gin v. U. S., 7 Cir., 175 F.2d 299; United States v. Lee Cheu Sing, 10 Cir., 189 F.2d 534.

In the certificate of arrival issued to each appellee by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on its printed form, the printed statement that the entry was for permanent residence was stricken out, and in its stead was inserted a notation that the entry was made under Section 3(6) of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 203(6), as the child of a treaty merchant. Since the facts are undisputed, the appel-lees are entitled to have their certificates of arrival amended to show entries for permanent residence.

Although the evidence that Lee Woon is the husband of an American citizen is rather meagre, it is sufficient to prevent its recognition from being clearly erroneous.

The order of the District Court is modified to amend the several certificates of arrival in accordance with this opinion, and, as so modified, it is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 F.2d 400, 1951 U.S. App. LEXIS 2435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-yin-liu-and-four-other-cases-ca2-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack