YAP TIAN UN (SUN), PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Yap Tian Un versus Insular Collector of Customs

The Case

This is a petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed by Yap Tian Un, a minor Chinese subject, against the Insular Collector of Customs, to test the legality of the Collector's order refusing him entry into the Philippine Islands and directing his return to China. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the right of entry of the minor child of a resident Chinese merchant after the death of that merchant, and because it illustrates the deference the courts accord to the administrative findings of the immigration authorities.

Procedural History

The board of special inquiry refused Yap Tian Un the right to enter the Philippine Islands and ordered him returned to China. He appealed to the Insular Collector of Customs, who affirmed the board's decision. He then filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. The judge of that court found that the Insular Collector of Customs had committed an error of law in denying the plaintiff the right to enter, held that as the minor son of a Chinaman who had been a merchant in the Philippine Islands he was entitled to enter even though his father was dead and even though he himself had never been in the Islands before, revoked the decision of the Collector, and ordered the plaintiff discharged from custody. From that decision the Attorney General appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

On the third of May, 1915, Yap Tian Un arrived at the port of Manila together with seventy four other aliens on the steamship Taisang, and asked permission to enter the Philippine Islands.

He alleged that he was a minor of seventeen years of age; that his father and mother were both Chinese persons; that he was born in China; that he had never been in the Philippine Islands before; that his father had died eleven years before the examination in the present case took place; that he did not have the section six certificate; and that his mother still lived in China together with his other brothers and sisters.

Upon these facts the board of special inquiry refused him the right to enter and ordered him returned to China. The Collector of Customs affirmed, and the Court of First Instance, on habeas corpus, reversed the Collector and ordered him discharged. The Attorney General then appealed, assigning as errors the finding that the minor child of a deceased resident Chinese merchant has a right to enter solely upon the ground of that relationship, and the reversal of the Collector's decision.

Issues

• Whether or not the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who has never been in the Philippine Islands, may enter the territory of the United States after the death of his father without the section six certificate.
• Whether or not the brief filed by the attorney for the appellee, which merely referred to the brief in another case, may be considered as a brief and given weight by the Court.

Applicable Provisions

The decision refers to the section six certificate, the document required of a Chinese person seeking entry, which the petitioner admittedly did not have. The decision does not quote the text of the provision, and no verbatim statutory language appears in the decision text supplied.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant, who has never resided in the Philippine Islands, will not be permitted to enter the territory of the United States after the death of his father without the section six certificate. The Court rested this on its prior rulings. In Tan Lin Jo versus Collector of Customs it had held that a minor, the son of a Chinaman, who had never resided in the Philippine Islands, will not be permitted to enter the territory of the United States, after the death of his father, without the section six certificate. In Lee Jua versus Collector of Customs it had decided that the wife and minor children, who had never been in the Philippine Islands, of a resident Chinese merchant were not permitted to enter the Philippine Islands after the death of the husband and father. The same doctrine was followed in Gang Kai Guan versus Collector of Customs and in Ex parte Chan Fooi. After a careful examination of the record and the arguments of counsel, the Court found no reason for changing or modifying the doctrine heretofore announced.

On the second issue, the Court observed that the brief of the appellee contained only the statement that the case was submitted on the brief and argument for the appellee in another case, the issues of law being identical. The Court held that a brief of that character lends but little assistance to the court, since the brief in the other case was not attached to the record, and the appellee had no assurance that the other case would be before the court when the present case was submitted. The Court declared that the brief should be stricken from the files, for the reason that it is not, in fact, a brief, and renders no assistance whatever to the court in deciding the present case.

Doctrine

A minor child of a resident Chinese merchant, who has never been in the Philippine Islands, has no right to enter the territory of the United States after the death of the father, solely upon the ground of that relationship, and without the section six certificate. The right of entry of the minor, in other words, does not survive the death of the merchant parent upon whose status it might otherwise have rested. A brief that does no more than refer the court to the brief filed in another case, without attaching that brief or its record, is not a brief at all and may be stricken from the files.

Disposition

The Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, ordered the record returned with direction that an order be entered revoking that judgment and affirming the order of deportation made by the Collector of Customs, denied the writ of habeas corpus, and ordered the petitioner returned to the Collector of Customs for deportation, without any finding as to costs.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the minor son of a resident Chinese merchant cannot enter after the father's death without the section six certificate, for the right does not survive the merchant. Examiners use this case to test the scope of derivative entry rights of Chinese minors and the Court's deference to the immigration authorities.