Lee Tin Mew v. William S. Jones, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

On May 7, 1958, William A. Hogan, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, issued an administrative subpoena directing Lee Tin Mew to appear and give testimony at the office of the Service in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, pursuant to the provisions of Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although an attempt to serve the subpoena at the home of Lee Tin Mew failed, his attorney appeared with appellant at the place designated and requested that the subpoena be served and the testimony taken. Lee Tin Mew was sworn before William S. Jones, described as an Investigator of the Service. Before the oath was administered, Investigator Jones gave him the following advice:

Apparently Lee Tin Mew understood only too well, for he answered only a few questions concerning his names and thereafter refused to answer any and all inquiries. Investigator Jones then petitioned for and obtained an order from the United States District Court ordering Lee Tin Mew to appear and testify. Thereafter, a motion to quash the order, together with an affidavit, was filed. The District Court denied the motion after argument. This appeal followed.

As will hereafter appear, the…

(concurring).

As I understand United States v. Min-ker, 350 U.S. 179 , 76 S.Ct. 281, 287 , 100 L.Ed. 185 , it decided that in view of the considerations of policy therein mentioned, it must be held that Congress had carefully differentiated between “a witness who is not the subject of an investigation and the person who is.” Accordingly, it was stated that Congress had “not provided with sufficient clarity that the subpoena power granted by § 235 (a) extends over persons who are the subject of denaturalization investigations.” While appellant here was not the subject of that kind of an investigation, he was clearly the subject of a similar investigation, namely, one looking to deportation. But the policy which was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Minker is one which has to do with deportation as well as denaturalization. Said the Court, 350 U.S. at page 188 , 76 S.Ct. at page 287 : “These considerations of policy, which determined the Court’s decisions in requiring judicial as against administrative adjudication of the issue of citizenship in a deportation proceeding and those defining the heavy criterion of proof to be exacted by the lower courts from the Government…

268 F.2d 376 LEE TIN MEW, Appellant, v. William S. JONES, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Appellee. No. 16059. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. April 10, 1959. N. W. Y. Char, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellant. Louis B. Blissard, U. S. Atty., Charles B. Dwight, III, Asst. U. S. Atty, Honolulu, Hawaii, for appellee. Before POPE, FEE and CHAMBERS, Circuit Judges. JAMES ALGER FEE, Circuit Judge. 1 On May 7, 1958, William A. Hogan, District Director of Immigration and Naturalization Service, issued an administrative subpoena directing Lee Tin Mew to appear and give testimony at the office of the Service in Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, pursuant to the provisions of Section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although an attempt to serve the subpoena at the home of Lee Tin Mew failed, his attorney appeared with appellant at the place designated and requested that the subpoena be served and the testimony taken. Lee Tin Mew was sworn before William S. Jones, described as an Investigator of the Service. Before the oath was administered, Investigator Jones gave him the following advice: 2 "Q. Mr. Lee you are advised that I am an investigator for the…