280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960), 15487, Rogers v. Cheng Fu Sheng

Docket Nº:15487.
Citation:280 F.2d 663
Party Name:William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States, Appellant v. CHENG FU SHENG and Lin Fu Mei, Appellees.
Case Date:June 10, 1960
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 663

280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960)

William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States, Appellant

v.

CHENG FU SHENG and Lin Fu Mei, Appellees.

No. 15487.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

June 10, 1960

Argued April 1, 1960.

Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U.S. Atty., for appellant. Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U.S. Atty., Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Louis M. Kaplan, Asst. U.S. Atty., at the time the brief was filed. were on the brief for appellant.

Mr. David Carliner, Washington, D.C., with whom Mr. Jack Wasserman, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for appellees.

Before Mr. Justice REED, retired, [*] and BAZELON and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges.

BAZELON, Circuit Judge.

The Attorney General appeals from the District Court's entry of summary judgment, on cross-motions, enjoining the deportation of the alien appellees 1 to Formosa on the ground that 'the place to which deportation may be ordered

Page 664

(under the Immigration and Nationality Act) is a county and not a particular location' and Formosa is neither a country itself nor part of any country, its status being in limbo. 2

Section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provides some nine places to which aliens may be deported. 3 In each case, with one possible exception not here relevant, 4 the place is described as a 'country.'

Although the term 'country' is used in this and other sections of the Act, Congress has supplied on definition. It must therefore be given its ordinary meaning, consistent with the purposes of the legislation. Delaney v. Moraitis, 4 Cir., 1943, 136 F.2d 129; Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 1932, 285 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 275, 277, 76 L.Ed. 587; cf. United States ex rel. Mensevich v. Tod, 1924, 264 U.S. 134, 44 S.Ct. 282, 68 L.Ed. 591.

The Supreme Court has pointed out that 'the word 'country' * * * is ambiguous. It may be taken to mean foreign territory or a foreign government. In the sense of territory, it may embrace all the territory subject to a foreign sovereign power. When referring more particularly to a foreign government, it may describe a foreign State in the international sense * * * or it may mean a foreign government which has authority over a particular area or subject matter, although not an international person * * *.' Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., supra.

Since...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP