Weedin

Lee Fung, a Chinese who claims to have been bom in China, December 7, 1908, came from there on October 6, 1931, and applied for admission into the United States as a citizen of this country by virtue of being a foreign-born son of Lee Nong, a native-born citizen of the United States. He was denied admission by a Board of Special Inquiry and from which decision he appealed to the Secretary of Labor, who dismissed his appeal and directed that he be returned to China. Upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he was discharged by the court below, and from such order this appeal is taken by the United States Commissioner. The American nativity and citizenship of the alleged father were conceded by the immigration officials, consequently if the appel-lee were his blood son he would be, under section 1993 of the Revised Statutes (8 USCA § 6), a citizen of the United States.

Therefore, the only question at issue is whether or not in refusing to concede the claimed relationship and denying appellee’s admission the immigration officials acted arbitrarily and unfairly, and were their acts in conflict with the principles of justice. The reason given by the immigration authorities as to…

(dissenting).

After examining the immigration records, and taking testimony, the Special Board of Inquiry rejected the testimony of the applicant and his alleged father by reason of certain discrepancies, therein. These discrepancies appear from the following quotation from their unanimous conclusion:

In response to these discrepancies the alleged father, Lee Hong, addressed a letter to his attorney, who forwarded it to the Department of Labor in Washington, in which he attempted to account for the discrepancies. This letter is in part as follows:

The discrepancies set out in the opinion of the Assistant Secretary, and also in the opinion of the Special Board, are sustained by the record. While it is true that there is a difference between the alleged father and son as to the relation of the village with the points of the compass, the alleged father’s diagram having the double row of houses in the village facing east and the son having them face south, this is only one item in the discrepancies between their testimony. The principal difference is as to the size of the village, the number of houses therein and the relationship of the houses in which the occupants are named to…