Nagle

(dissenting).

In Woo Hoo v. White, cited in the majority opinion, this court said that, upon the question of age, the opinion of a surgeon is believed to be of no greater value than that of a layman, and, in either case, is of little probative value to show a difference in age of only two years. In that case, as in this, the applicant claimed to be of the age of about 20 years, and the difference between the claimed age and the apparent age was from two to four years. Subsequent eases, I think, demonstrate the correctness of the views there expressed, and I do not feel that a person who has attained the age of majority, or nearly so, and has satisfactorily established his citizenship in other respects, should b® *454 denied rights appertaining to citizenship simply because some person or persons express an opinion that he looks a little older or a little younger than he claims to be. We are daily brought into contact with people whose ages belie their appearance to as great an. extent as in the ease before us, and, if our own rights were involved, we would not be willing to hazard a penny on our judgment.

The order should be reversed.

This is an appeal from an order quashing a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the petitioner to the custody of the immigration authorities for deportation. The application for admission was based upon a claim of citizenship through the father. At the hearing, the ap-' pellant and his supporting witnesses testified that he was 20 years and 6 months old, and, unless his age was substantially as claimed, it is conceded that the elaim of citizenship' must fail. The sole ground for exclusion was that the appellant appeared to be some years older than he claimed. One member of the Board of Special Inquiry expressed the opinion that he was one year either way from 24; another that he was close to 25; another, that he was a couple of years older than 21, say 24, and still another that he was between 23 and 25. The surgeon of the United States Public Health Service was of opinion that he was within three years either way of 27, while *453 two physicians practicing in the city of San Francisco expressed the opinion that he was between 19 and 21. This question has been presented to this court in a number of eases under varying circumstances and with varying results. Woo Hoo v. White (C. C.…