Plummer

(after stating the facts as above). [1, 2] The evidence that the appellant had performed labor in the United States consisted in testimony that he had, while staying in Mountain Plome, worked in the restaurant of his brother, whom he was visiting at that place. He denied that he had received pay for his work, and there was no evidence to the contrary. He admitted that his brother had sent him money to pay his fare to Mountain Home, but he also testified that he had a $500 interest in Eah Wah Company, Dupont street, San Francisco, and that he was in Idaho “investigating business locations.” The fact that one who has been admitted into the United States as a merchant subsequently becomes a laborer is not in itself ground for his deportation. In re Yew Bing Hi (D. C.) 128 Fed. 319 ; United States v. Leo Won Tong (D. C.) 132 Fed. 190 ; United States v. Foo Duck, 172 Fed. 856 , 97 C. C. A. 204 ; United States v. Hom Lin (D. C.) 214 Fed. 456 ; Lew Ling Chong v. United States, 222 Fed. 195 , 137 C. C. A. 635 ; United States v. Fong Hong (D. C.) 233 Fed. 168 ; United States v. Lee You Wing, 211 Fed. 939 , 128 C. C. A. 437 . But if one who has been admitted on certificate as a merchant…