290 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1961), 17184, Liang v. United States Dept. of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service
|Citation:||290 F.2d 614|
|Party Name:||Marco LIANG, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, George K. Rosenberg, District Director, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||March 30, 1961|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Arthur Mabry, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Richard A. Lavine and Frederick M. Brosio, Jr., Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, HAMLEY and MERRILL, Circuit Judges.
MERRILL, Circuit Judge.
Marco Liang, held under a warrant of deportation, seeks discharge in habeas corpus. He has appealed from an order of the district court denying him relief.
Liang entered this country October 29, 1949, under § 4(e) of the Immigration Act of 1924 (former Title 8 U.S.C. § 204(e)) 1 qualifying as a non-quota immigrant for the reason that he had been accepted as a student by an approved school in this country. He was admitted for a period of one year. This stay was extended to October 12, 1951. There were no subsequent extensions. Since October 12, 1951, Liang has not engaged in studies at any educational institution.
On November 17, 1953, Liang applied for adjustment of his immigration status under § 6 of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 1971d. This application was denied. On October 4, 1955, a deportation warrant of arrest was issued. For five years proceedings ran their course: hearings before special inquiry officers in Denver and in Miami, followed by two appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals; applications by Liang for suspension of deportation under § 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a), and for discretionary relief. At Liang's hearing, held in Miami, Florida, January 15, 1957, his counsel conceded 'deportability on the charge as presently worded and that (Liang) is a technical overstay and is technically not maintaining status.' Liang's position at that time was simply that he should be granted suspension of deportation. The ultimate determination was that Liang was ineligible for suspension of deportation and was deportable under § 241(a)(9). 2
In the present proceedings in habeas corpus, it is Liang's position that he is not subject to deportation. He contends that under the provisions of the China
Area Aid Act of 1950, 3 he is maintaining non-immigration status and is entitled to remain in this country and seek employment even though he is no longer pursuing his studies.
We may concede for purposes of discussion, without discussing the many complexities of the question, that the China Area Aid Act provided means whereby Liang might have secured permission to remain in this country and secure employment. The difficulty is that on the occasions of his two administrative hearings and appeals he failed to show that he had either applied for or been granted the privileges conferred by the Act or even to suggest that he fell within the provisions of the Act.
In asserting his contention, Liang now relies upon the following statement mad eby him in his hearing held in Denver, Colorado, on December 16, 1955:
'In 1953, thirteen of my friends sponsored me. They wrote 13 letters to Senator Johnson to ask him to give me a special bill on American citizenship...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP