Wong Lum v. Esperdy
Decision Date | 26 August 1960 |
Citation | 187 F. Supp. 95 |
Parties | WONG LUM, a/k/a Wang Lung, Plaintiff, v. P. A. ESPERDY, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service for the New York District, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Samuel Bernstein, New York City, for plaintiff.
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for defendant.
Sub judice are plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The underlying facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiff, a native and citizen of, and last resident in China, entered this country on February 15, 1959, under a temporary landing permit as a non-immigrant crewman. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1282(a). He overstayed the period fixed in said permit and, after a hearing, was ordered deported. Neither deportability nor validity of any of the proceedings upon which that determination rests are challenged. In this action for a declaratory judgment and review of the proceedings, 28 U.S. C.A. § 2201, and 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq., plaintiff questions the validity only of so much of the order as directs deportation to Formosa.
At the hearing, in accordance with section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(a), plaintiff indicated a preference to be deported to Hong Kong. However, the authorities there refused to accept plaintiff as a deportee. Upon due inquiry by the Attorney General, the Consul General of the Republic of China expressed a willingness to accept plaintiff, and on July 18, 1960 issued a passport authorizing his entry into the territory of Formosa (Taiwan).
The thrust of plaintiff's claim is that Formosa is not a "country" within the meaning and intent of section 243(a). The authoritative decisional law is to the contrary. See, e. g., In Rogers v. Cheng Fu Sheng, D.C.Cir.1960, 280 F.2d 663, reversing D.C.D.C.1959, 177 F.Supp. 281, wherein the Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lam Man Chi v. Bouchard
...cert. den. 364 U.S. 891, 81 S.Ct. 222, 5 L.Ed.2d 187 (1960); Chao Chin Chen v. Murff, 168 F.Supp. 349 (S. D.N.Y.1958); Wong Lum v. Esperdy, 187 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Dai Ming Shih v. Kennedy, 111 U.S.App.D. C. 380, 297 F.2d 791 (1961), cert. den. 369 U.S. 844, 82 S.Ct. 876, 7 L.Ed.2d 8......
-
Lee Wei Fang v. Kennedy
...§ 243(a) of which number three certainly covers him and probably several others. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.) See also Wong Lum v. Esperdy, 187 F. Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y.1960); Chu Lam v. Esperdy, 209 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y.1962); and Ng Kam Fook v. Esperdy, 209 F. Supp. 637 (S.D.N.Y.1962), app. pend......
-
Dai Ming Shih v. Kennedy
...Wang v. Pilliod, 285 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1960); Liang v. U. S. Department of Justice, etc., 290 F.2d 614 (9th Cir.1961); Wong Lum v. Esperdy, 187 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y.1960). Appellants also urge that the warrants of deportation are void for failure to specify the country to which they are to b......