Weedin

Appellee, Lee Gock Doo, was discharged following the granting of a writ of habeas corpus. The Commissioner of Immigration appeals.

Lee Gock Doo applied for admission to the United States as a citizen by virtue of being a foreign-born son of Lee Yuen, a native-born citizen of this country. The citizenship of the father was conceded. The Board of Special .Inquiry denied admission upon the ground that relationship had not been satisfactorily established, and an appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of Labor. A writ of habeas corpus was thereafter applied for, which, after hearing upon order to show cause, was ordered issued; appellee being thereafter discharged, upon the ground that the conclusions of the Board of Special Inquiry were arbitrary and capricious.

Examination of the original immigration record transmitted to this court as an exhibit shows that testimony was given, by the applicant, Lee Gock Doo, his alleged father, Lee Yuen, and one Wong Ben Yook, no relation to applicant. As a whole, the testimony of these witnesses at this hearing was in substantial agreement. It appears, however, that in 1926, on his return from a trip to China, Lee Yuen, the alleged father, brought…

(concurring).

Upon the face of Judge KERRIGAN’S opinion there ma.y ho an apparent inconsistency between the conclusion therein reached and the Horn Chung Case (C. C. A.) 41 F.(2d) 206 , this day decided, because the discrepancies listed in the opinion in the latter are more numerous than and some of them seemingly as serious as those referred to by Judge KERRIGAN. But as is often true, the relative probative weight of the testimony in- two eases cannot be fairly appraised by reference only to specific discrepancies. Considered in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, the testimony here is less convincing. If it be granted 1ha,t the corroborating witness Wong Ben Yook testified in good faith, his testimony is without substantial probative value. While I do not think it necessary to attach to the alleged father’s statement that one of the reasons why he did not produce as a witness another alleged son was that “the testimony would be all mixed up,” a sinister meaning, it still remains true that neither he nor the applicant produced as witnesses other alleged members of the family or third persons having intimate and long-standing knowledge of his family, though,…