Case ID: f_231/html/0948-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COXE, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CHIN SING QUON v. UNITED STATES.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 14, 1916.)
    No. 230.
    Aliens <§=>32(12)—Deportation op Chinese—Review—Findings op Fact.
    On appeal by a Chinese person from an order of deportation, the order will not be reversed merely because on the evidence the appellate court would have found the facts differently.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Aliens, Cent. Dig. § 95; Dec. Dig. <§=> 32(12).]
    <@=»For other eases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.
    Proceeding by the United States against Chin Sing Quon for deportation as a Chinese person not entitled to remain in the United States. From an order for deportation (224 Fed. 752), defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Lester W. Bloch, of Albany, N Y., for appellant.
    D. B. Lucey, U. S. Atty., of Ogdensburg, N. Y. (Harry V. Borst, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Amsterdam, N. Y., of counsel), for the United States.
    Before COXE, WARD, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
   COXE, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of Judge Ray affirming a decision of the United States commissioner finding that the appellant is a Chinese person not entitled to remain in the United States and ordering his deportation to China. Upon the prima facie case made by the government there is no doubt that the appellant should be deported.

Appellant’s claim to remain in this country is based upon his own testimony and that of Mary J. Matthews and two Chinese persons. The testimony introduced was insufficient to satisfy the commissioner and the District Judge that the appellant was entitled to remain in this country. We think we would not be justified in overruling their judgment.

The question was one of fact and even if we might have reached a different conclusion if we had heard the testimony in the first instance, the assumption furnishes no reason for a reversal. We cannot say that the finding of the commissioner and the District Judge is so contrary to the evidence as to justify us in setting it aside.

The order of the District Judge affirming the judgment of deportation is affirmed.