Nagle

Appellant, who claims to be the foreign-bom son of a Chinese father born in the United States, was by the immigration officers denied admission upon the ground that his evidence did not satisfactorily establish the alleged relationship. Admittedly the testimony he produced was in certain particulars out of harmony with testimony given by alleged relatives upon previous occasions in support of applications for the admission of *506 other alleged members of his family. Six of these discrepancies were pointed out in the decisions of the immigration officers. One of them relates to- the question whether the applicant’s paternal grandmother had “unbound” or “natural” feet. That in terms the record exhibits a conflict is not disputed, but appellant contends it is due to confusion in the minds -of the witnesses touching the meaning of the two words “unbound” and “natural.” It seems to be true that not infrequently apparent discrepancies in that respect are to be so explained, and to avoid them the department, by its letter of instructions to- inspectors and others of date April 4, 1916, directed them to inquire of witnesses particularly in such a manner as to have them make clear what…