Opinion
The appellee, D. Charlie Mark, a Chinese person, seeks admission to the United States as a returning native-born citizen. He was denied admission after the usual investigation by the appellant, the Chinese inspector in charge at Port Sumas, Wash. An appeal from the order of rejection was taken to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and after consideration the appeal was dismissed, and the order of rejection affirmed. While being detained at Sumas, Wash., awaiting deportation, in accordance with the order of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, the appellee, through one Loon Kee, filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, praying for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other things, that the appellee was a native-born citizen of the United States, and was entitled to admission therein; that when seeking admission he was possessed of a passport duly and regularly issued by the Secretary of State of the United States, and that the same was presented to the officers of the Bureau of Immigration at the port of entry, but no consideration was given by the said officers to said passport; further, that he was not given a fair and impartial hearing on his application for admission to the United States by the officers of the Bureau of Immigration. Thereupon the writ as prayed for was granted by the District Court. Appellant objected to the taking of testimony in said cause, other than such as related to the question whether he had been given a fair and impartial hearing on his application for admission into the United States. The objection was overruled, and thereupon testimony on the merits was taken and submitted to the District Court, which thereafter directed the discharge of the appellee from custody. From the order of discharge, the present appeal is taken.
Elmer E. Todd, U.S. Atty., and Charles T. Hutson, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellant.
Page 293.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
The passport issued to the appellee by the Department of State was not evidence of his citizenship. Urtetiqui v. D'Arcy, 34 U.S. 692, 9 L.Ed. 276; In re Gee Hop (D.C.) 71 F. 274. With respect to the proceedings before the executive officers concerning the right of appellee to enter the United States on the ground that he was a citizen of the United States, we find nothing in the record indicating that he was deprived of a fair and impartial hearing.
Upon the authority of the case of United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253, 25 Sup.Ct. 644, 49 L.Ed. 1040, and In re Tang Tun, 168 F. 488, 93 C.C.A. 644, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the proceedings.