209 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), Chu Lam v. Esperdy

Citation:209 F.Supp. 1
Party Name:CHU LAM, A11 181 005 and Chan Bing Kwong, A11 629 187, Plaintiffs, v. P. A. ESPERDY, as District Director for the New York District, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, Defendant.
Case Date:September 18, 1962
Court:United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, Southern District of New York
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

209 F.Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)

CHU LAM, A11 181 005 and Chan Bing Kwong, A11 629 187, Plaintiffs,

v.

P. A. ESPERDY, as District Director for the New York District, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, Defendant.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

Sept. 18, 1962

Edward Hong, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, for defendant; Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, of counsel.

METZNER, District Judge.

Defendant moves for summary judgment in this action for a declaratory

Page 2

judgment seeking to review orders of the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service directing the deportation of the plaintiffs to Hong Kong pursuant to warrants of deportation.

Plaintiffs have not submitted any papers opposition to this motion.

The plaintiff Chu Lam is a Chinese seaman who remained in this country after the expiration of his shore leave. He was apprehended and after a hearing was ordered deported. This plaintiff claims that he is a native and citizen of China and was last a resident of the China mainland. He submitted an affidavit to the Immigration Service stating that he does not want to return to China, but he has refused to designate any country to which he would like to be sent.

He claims that the provisions of section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(a)) have not been complied with because of the failure of the defendant to make inquiry of the authorities on the China mainland as to whether they would accept him under the order of deportation. It is true that such inquiry was not made, but inquiry was made by the defendant of the government on Formosa, which refused to accept plaintiff. Plaintiff's deportation to Hong Kong was ordered after officials there advised that they would accept him.

Section 243(a) sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the Attorney General in effecting the deportation of an alien. Step No. 1 provides that the alien shall be deported to a country designated by him if that country is willing to accept him. If the alien fails to make a designation or if he does so and the designated country fails to advise that it will accept him into its territory, then the Attorney General must take Step No. 2. Step No. 2 contemplates the deportation of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP