Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 5556.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 5556.,5556. |
| Citation | 271 F.2d 903 |
| Parties | CHAN WING CHEUNG, a.k.a. Bill Woo, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Frank C. HAGERTY, Officer in Charge, U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Providence, Rhode Island, Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Thomas F. Vance, Jr., Providence, R. I., with whom E. Harold Dick, Providence, R. I., was on brief, for appellant.
Joseph Mainelli, U. S. Atty., Providence, R. I., with whom Arnold Williamson, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Providence, R. I., was on brief, for appellee.
Before WOODBURY, Chief Judge, and HARTIGAN and ALDRICH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, a Chinese national under order of deportation, brought this action in the district court seeking review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from an order of a special inquiry officer which in effect held that petitioner is ineligible to apply to the Attorney General under section 244(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254(a) (1958), for a discretionary suspension of deportation and adjustment of status. This section, in numbered paragraphs, establishes five categories of deportable aliens who are entitled to seek such relief. The district court dismissed the action. The facts are fully stated in its opinion, 176 F.Supp. 421. The only question on this appeal is whether as matter of law petitioner could qualify under any paragraph of the statute. We agree that he could not.
In this court petitioner concedes that he has no claim under section 244(a) (2), which deals with aliens who are deportable solely for an act committed, or status existing, prior to or at the time of entry. Petitioner is being deported solely on the ground that his right to remain in this country expired in October, 1950, so that since then he has been a person who has remained longer in the United States than the period for which he was admitted. Although this status is specifically covered in section 244(a) (5), petitioner admittedly cannot qualify under paragraph (5) as a whole because he cannot satisfy its further requirement of ten years' residence. Accordingly, he claims under section 244(a) (3), which requires only five years' residence.
Paragraph (3) applies to an alien who is deportable for "an act committed or status acquired subsequent to such entry into the United States and who is not within the provisions of paragraph (4) or (5) of this subsection * * *" Paragraph (5...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Bufalino
...time of his reentry from Canada. 3. Krug v. Pederson, C 62-376. No. D. Ohio. E.D. (June 24, 1964), unreported. 4. Chang Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 271 F.2d 903 (1 Cir. 1959), cert. den. 362 U.S. 911, rehearing denied 362 U.S. 5. The court in a prior proceeding in this case Buffalino v. Holland......
-
Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 2692.
...244 of said Act, 8 U.S. C.A. § 1254, and denial of this application, 176 F.Supp. 421, was ultimately affirmed. Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 1 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 903. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under section 249 on March 18, 1960. The administrative file establishes that......
-
Chan Wing Cheung v. Hamilton
...provisions of section 244 of said Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1254, and denial of this application was ultimately affirmed. Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 1 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 903. The matter is now before me upon the respective motions of the plaintiff and the defendants for the entry of a summary j......
-
Chan Wing Cheung v. Hamilton, 5910.
...ALDRICH, Circuit Judge. Appellant, a native of China, after an earlier, unsuccessful appearance before this court, Chan Wing Cheung v. Hagerty, 1 Cir., 1959, 271 F.2d 903, sought discretionary administrative relief under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1259 to avoid deportation. Dissatisfied by the results, h......