Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Everett Flint DAMON ex rel. KOCK TANG et al., Petitioner, Appellant, v. John P. JOHNSON, United States Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent, Appellee
16 F.2d 1015·United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·1927
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Everett Flint DAMON ex rel. KOCK TANG et al., Petitioner, Appellant, v. John P. JOHNSON, United States Commissioner of Immigration, Respondent, Appellee.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
January 26, 1927.)
No. 2093.
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts; James M. Morton, Judge.
E. F. Damon, of Boston, Mass. (Walter Bates Farr, of Boston, .Mass., on the brief), for appellant.
John W. Sehenek, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Boston, Mass., for appellee.
Before BINGHAM, JOHNSON, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.]
BINGHAM, Circuit Judge.
Koek Tang and Koek Bow are applicants for admission to the country as the foreign-bom sons of Young Fung Hing, a native-born citizen. They were ordered deported by the Department of Labor. Thereupon habeas corpus proceedings were instituted in the District Court for Massachusetts. The District Court, following our decision in Johnson, Com’r, v. Koek Shing, 3 F.(2d) 889, declined to find that the applicants were not afforded a fair hearing before the, immigration authorities and entered an order remanding them for deportation, and this appeal was taken. We regard the evidence in this case as less favorable to the applicants than was the evidence in Johnson, Com’r, v. Koek Shing, supra, and see no reason for questioning the order of the court below.
The decree of the District Court is affirmed.
[CONCURRENCE — ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,]
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurs, on the ground that there is clear evidence distinguishing this ease from Johnson v. Koek Shing, supra, in which he dissented.