Case Name: FLYNN ex rel. CHIN TAI SING v. TILLINGHAST, Commissioner of Immigration
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1929-10-17
Citations: 35 F.2d 347
Docket Number: No. 2378
Parties: FLYNN ex rel. CHIN TAI SING v. TILLINGHAST, Commissioner of Immigration.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 35
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
FLYNN ex rel. CHIN TAI SING v. TILLINGHAST, Commissioner of Immigration.
Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
October 17, 1929.
No. 2378.
The opinion of Judge Morton in the District Court is as follows :
The citizenship of the father is conceded, the excluding decision having been based on tbe refusal of tbe immigration tribunals to accept the evidence of relationship. The question is whether, in so doing, they acted arbitrarily and unreasonably.
In 1926 the alleged father was examined with reference to a son of the same name as the applicant whose status was under preinvestigation for entrance into this country; and he submitted an affidavit containing photographs of himself and his alleged son. The effort to bring the boy in at that time apparently was not followed up. In 1928, in connection with the present application for admittance, the father voluntarily stated to the immigration service that the photograph annexed to his 1926 affidavit was not that of his son; that by a mistake the photograph of a stranger had been sent to him and annexed; and that he did not then call attention to the mistake because, having last seen the boy 10 years before when he was only 6 y^ars old, he was himself deceived by the blunder in the mercantile house, where the photographs were confused. This is of course a possible explanation of an admitted blunder. The question is whether it is true, or whether a substitution has been attempted. The alleged father says that he first learned of the mistake in 1927 when his wife sent him correct photographs of their son. The applicant, however, testifies that he knew nothing about his coming to the United States until 1928 when he was told to go to Hong Kong and get photographs to send to his father in connection with his coming here; that he then went and had his picture taken and had never done so before; that the photographs were sent directly to his father from the store in Hong Kong and his mother never saw a photograph of him.
This discrepancy is in itself sufficiently serious to justify a finding that the explanation given of the 1926 photograph is false and the relationship not proved. But in addition to it, the alleged father’s testimony about his children given at different times in previous proceedings was not consistent. Moreover, he said that his father was dead, while the applicant testified that his paternal grandfather was living in China. The fa/ther testified that his home village had neither well nor place of worship-, but the applicant says it has both and has always had them. The father’s long absence from China may fairly account for loss of memory about details of the village and its surroundings, but not about such basic facts as these.
Without further discussing the evidence, or attempting to say where the truth lies . — which is for the immigration tribunals to determine — I am clearly of opinion that their decision, adverse to the applicant, cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable.
Petition dismissed.
Walter Bates Farr, of Boston, Mass. (E. F. Damon, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant. ,
John W. Sehenck, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass. (Frederick H. Tarr, U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The following final decree is entered without opinion: For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Court, the decree of the District Court is affirmed.