TOMAS ONG LIENGCO, IN BEHALF OF ONG LET, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

On
December 7, 1932, Ong Let, together with Ong Guat and Ong Sek, arrived
at the port of Manila, and, after proper investigation conducted by the
customs authorities, were allowed to land as sons of the herein
petitioner, who is a citizen of the Islands. Subsequently, however, Ong
Let, together with his alleged brothers, were charged with having
secured admission into this country through fraud and fraudulent
representations in violation of the Act of Congress of February 5,
1917. So far, only Ong Let has been arrested. After due investigation
as to his right to remain in the country, the customs authorities
ordered his deportation.

To obtain a review of the order of
deportation, this petition was begun in the Court of First Instance of
Manila. At the hearing of the case in that court, the only evidence
presented was the record of the proceedings had before the customs
authorities which resulted in the order of deportation. On the evidence
thus adduced, the trial court granted the petition.

The
question raised by this appeal is whether or not the respondent had the
power to review his former order admitting Ong Let, and, if so, whether
or not the order of deportation was in accordance with the law.

It has been held that an order of admission of an immigrant is not a
conclusive adjudication, preventing subsequent deportation proceedings.
(Ex parte Chin Own, 239 Fed., 391.) Such an order is not even a
competent evidence in a subsequent proceeding for his deportation. (You
Fook Hing vs. U. S., 214 Fed., 77; Ex parte Mac Fock, 207 Fed., 696; Lum Bing Wey vs.
U. S., 201 Fed., 379.) In the United States, decisions in favor of the
right to enter are not conclusive on the United States. (2 Corpus
Juris, 1111; 2 Cyc., 130; 2 Ruling Case Law, section 54, p. 841.) Nor
do they constitute res adjudicata. (Pearson vs. Williams, 136 Fed., 734-735; 202 U. S., 281; Ex parte Chun Wing, 18 Fed., 2d ed., 119; White vs. Chan Wy Sheung, 270 Fed., 764.)

The right of the courts to review proceedings of deportation or
exclusion of aliens is limited to cases of denial of fair hearing or
abuse of authority. (2 Corpus Juris, section 126, p. 1112.) The burden
of proof is upon the petitioner to show that the customs authorities
have abused their authority, power or discretion. (Tan Me Nio vs. Collector of Customs, 34 Phil., 944; Flores Tan vs.
Collector of Customs, 33 Phil., 205). A mere assertion of citizenship
is not sufficient to overcome the burden of proof cast upon an alien
claiming the right to remain in the country. (Guan Lee vs. U. S., 198 Fed., 596.)

Applying the foregoing principles to the case before us, we notice that
the only evidence presented by the petitioner is the record of the
previous proceedings under and by virtue of which Ong Let was allowed
landing. Ong Let was afforded ample opportunity to prove that the
representations made by him in said proceedings were true, but he
failed to take advantage of that opportunity and obstinately refused to
testify as to the truth or untruth of such representations. Moreover,
an examination of the personal record of his alleged father, shows that
he is not the son of the latter.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Vickers, and Butte, JJ., concur.