Case Name: Everett Flint DAMON, ex rel. FONG HANG LEONG, Petitioner, Appellant, v. John P. JOHNSON, U. S. Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1925-02-17
Citations: 4 F.2d 1016
Docket Number: No. 1799
Parties: Everett Flint DAMON, ex rel. FONG HANG LEONG, Petitioner, Appellant, v. John P. JOHNSON, U. S. Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent, Appellee.
Judges: Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, JJ.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 4
Pages: 1016–1016

Head Matter:
Everett Flint DAMON, ex rel. FONG HANG LEONG, Petitioner, Appellant, v. John P. JOHNSON, U. S. Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
February 17, 1925.)
No. 1799.
Appeal from the district court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James Arnold Lowell, Judge.
Everett Flint Damon, of Boston, Mass., for appellant. Robert O. Harris, U. S. Atty., and John W. Schenck, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass. (Harold P. Williams, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, JJ.

Opinion:
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
Fong Hang Leong claims to be the foreign-born son of Fong Ging and that Fong Ging is an American citizen. The immigration officials held against both contentions — that Fong Ging was not proved to be of American birth, and that the applicant (a man 38 years old, with three or four children) was not proved to be Fong Ging's son. On petition for habeas corpus the District Court said: "The immigration authorities gave careful attention to this case, and decided on evidence ' which might, well have satisfied a court of justice that the father of the appellant was not an American citizen. Under these circumstances I can find no ground for the allegation in the petition that a fair hearing was not granted. Writ refused." As the District Court found all jurisdictional facts in the respondent's favor, no appeal to this court lies. The case is on all fours with 1723, Chin Wey v. Wixon, 4 F.(2d) 247, decided this day. It must be transferred to the Supreme Court under Act of September 14, 1922. Judicial Code, § 238a (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 1215a). It is so ordered.