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.
UNITED STATES ex rel. CHUNG YUEN POY v. CORSI, Commissioner of Immigration, 1933 — 62 F.2d 777 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES ex rel. CHUNG YUEN POY v. CORSI, Commissioner of Immigration
62 F.2d 777·United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·1933
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
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
UNITED STATES ex rel. CHUNG YUEN POY v. CORSI, Commissioner of Immigration.
No. 251.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Jan. 23, 1933.
John M. Lyons, of Now York City (David V. Cahill, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Ira Koenig, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This writ of habeas corpus was sued out testing the order of exclusion of the relator, a Chinese person, who is an applicant for admission to the United States. He was excluded by the Board of Special Inquiry because of discrepancies in the evidence which satisfied the Board and the Department of Labor that he was not the son of a deceased United States citizen, as claimed, and therefore was not within the exempt classes prescribed by the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924 (8 USCA §§ 145, 146, 166, 167, 179, 201-226, 229). The conclusion of the Board of Special Inquiry, in view of the discrepancies established, is binding upon us, and the appellant has had a fair hearing. The decision below was not reached arbitrarily. United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 253, 25 S. Ct. 644, 49 L. Ed. 1040; Tang Tun v. Edsell, 223 U. S. 673, 32 S. Ct. 359, 56 L. Ed. 606; United States ex rel. Fong Lung Sing v. Day, 37 F.(2d) 36 (C. C. A. 2); United States ex rel. Fong On v. Day, 54 F.(2d) 990 (C. C. A. 2).
Order affirmed.