187 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1960), Wong Lum v. Esperdy

Citation:187 F.Supp. 95
Party Name: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.
Case Date:August 26, 1960
Court:United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, Southern District of New York
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 95

187 F.Supp. 95 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)

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.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Aug. 26, 1960

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.

BICKS, District Judge.

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 of 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).

Page 96

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP