Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that the National Archives' website and collection contain the names, images and voices of people who have died.
Some records include terms and views that are not appropriate today. They reflect the period in which they were created and are not the views of the National Archives.
Application of Immigration Act in case of Australian-born Chinese boy
A Chinese named Yeung Chun was born at Darwin on 21/7/02. [Begin underline in pencil] He left for China with his father in 1910 [end underline] and returned to Sydney with a birth certificate on the 19th November last, and was rejected.
2. The case was taken to Court and the Magistrate found in favour of Yeung Chun and the case was dismissed. The Magistrate said that there was no evidence that the defendant’s father did not intend to return to Australia after a trip to China. He was of opinion that the father never intended to establish a permanent home in China, such as would deprive his family of the rights they would have when residing in Australia. The Magistrate found that Yeung Chun could justly and in substance claim to regard Australia as a place of habitation or general residence which he has never abandoned.
3. The Deputy Crown Solicitor, Sydney, is of opinion that the Magistrate was wrong in deciding that Yeung Chun could justly and in substance claim to regard Australia as a place of habitation or general residence which he had never abandoned, and he thinks that Yeung Chun is an immigrant within the meaning of the Immigration Act.
4. The Deputy Crown Solicitor is doubtful whether an Appeal would be successful and counsel concurs in this view. However, he thinks that an Appeal would probably clear up some points which were left undecided in the Potter v. Minahan case, viz. whether the right to regard a particular part of the earth as “home” can be lost by a change of residence or whether if lost it can be re-acquired.
5. The Crown Solicitor doubts whether an Appeal should be instituted unless the Crown authorities think that the decision was wrong. He says that it would be desirable to get the case of Potter v. Minahan reviewed but feels doubtful whether this case is a good one to bring forward for the purpose.
6. There appears to be little likelihood of an Appeal being successful and the question is therefore submitted as to whether it is considered that an Appeal for the purpose mentioned by the Deputy Crown Solicitor is considered justifiable.
[Handwritten signature:] H. Ryan
29/1/25.
[Handwritten annotation in black ink:] Submitted. As the Crown Solicitor says he is doubtful as to our prospects of appeal in this case which he does not consider a good one for our purposes I would recommend that no further proceedings be taken.
[Illegible initials] 29/1
[Handwritten annotation in different black ink:] Approved
