Cheng v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 699
| Decision Date | 05 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 699,D,699 |
| Citation | 534 F.2d 1018 |
| Parties | CHENG, Sau Fu, et al., Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. ocket 75-4064. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Jules E. Coven, New York City (Lebenkoff & Coven, Abraham Lebenkoff, New York City, on the brief), for petitioners.
Thomas H. Belote, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty. (Thomas J. Cahill, U. S. Atty., for the Southern District of New York, Mary P. Maguire, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Steven J. Glassman, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOORE and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, District Judge. *
The narrow issue on this petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals in whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Immigration Judge, affirmed by the Board, that petitioners, all natives and citizens of China, made an "entry" into the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13). 1 If they did so "enter," petitioners agree that they were subject to deportation proceedings. But petitioners urge that they were caught at the border and could therefore only be excluded, not deported. Exclusion and deportation proceedings are legally distinct and have different procedural and substantive consequences. Petitioners obviously believe that it is in their interest to subject themselves to exclusion rather than to deportation.
In September 1973, petitioners crossed the Canadian border at 3:00 A.M. into Vermont, hidden in a van. All five had previously been arrested in this country and deported. 2 The van did not use U.S. Route 7, the ordinary route to the inspection station, but travelled without lights on another road. Within the van was a mechanical means to deactivate vehicle detection apparatus at the border. The driver of the van had, one week earlier, escaped after apprehension by the Vermont State Police when he had surreptitiously entered the United States in the same way. A border patrol agent heard the van after it had proceeded four-tenths of a mile into the United States. He followed the van for about a mile, until it turned in a direction away from the border inspection checkpoint. At that point, he stopped the van and arrested petitioners.
The parties agree that the Immigration Judge and the Board correctly defined entry as (1) a crossing into the territorial limits of the United States; and either (2) inspection and admission by an immigration officer; or (3) actual and intentional evasion of inspection coupled with freedom from official restraint. See Matter of Pierre, BIA Interim Decision # 2238 (Oct. 5, 1973). But petitioners, relying on Ex parte Chow Chok, 161 F. 627 (N.D.N.Y.1908), aff'd, 163 F. 1021 (2d Cir. 1908), argue that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zhang v. Slattery
...to the Rockaway beach "free[ ] from official restraint". This case is distinguishable from our previous decision in Cheng v. INS, 534 F.2d 1018 (2d Cir.1976) (per curiam ). In Cheng, aliens hiding in a van surreptitiously crossed the Canadian border into Vermont a short distance from an INS......
-
U.S. v. Kavazanjian
...not counsel otherwise, for even a temporary evasion of the inspection process suffices to produce an entry. See, e. g., Cheng v. INS, 534 F.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Cir. 1976); United States v. Martin-Plascencia, 532 F.2d 1316, 1317-18 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 894, 97 S.Ct. 255, 50 L.Ed.......
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, AFL-CIO v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc.
-
Matter of G----
...an alien at a port of entry effected an entry when he evaded inspectors and fled 50 yards into San Ysidro, California); Cheng v. INS, 534 F.2d 1018, 1019 (2d Cir. 1976); Matter of Z----, 20 I&N Dec. 707 (BIA 1993) (finding that an alien who debarks from his vessel at a place not designated ......