Chin Fong v. Backus

Background

Chin Fong, a Chinese resident who had lived in the United States for years, left for China in November 1912 after a pre-investigation for merchant status was denied because his original entry was deemed surreptitious. Despite that denial, he tried to return as a merchant, supported by affidavits from a member of his claimed New York firm and two reputable American witnesses. Immigration officials refused him admission and ordered deportation. He filed a habeas corpus petition, which the District Court dismissed and remanded him to the custody of the immigration commissioner pending deportation.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the immigration officers could demand more proof than the statute required or whether a treaty guarantee for Chinese merchants barred that inquiry. The Court explained that it could only hear the appeal if a constitutional or treaty question was substantially involved. Reviewing the arguments, the Court found the treaty did not give Chin Fong the protection he claimed and that his rights rested on the immigration statutes, not the treaty. The Court therefore refused to disturb the immigration department’s finding and declined to decide whether his original entry or residence had been illegal.

Real world impact

As a result, the immigration authorities’ refusal to let him land stands and he was remanded for deportation. The decision confirms that questions of re-entry after voluntary departure are for immigration officials under the statutory rules in force, and the Supreme Court did not reach or resolve underlying factual questions about his original entry.