Chung Wook Myung v. District Director, 72-1202.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1202.,72-1202. |
| Parties | CHUNG WOOK MYUNG, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF the UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Hiram W. Kwan (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner.
Carolyn M. Reynolds, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., Joseph Surreck, Regional Counsel, I&NS, San Pedro, Cal., Stephen Suffin, Atty., I&NS, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.
Before ELY and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, District Judge.*
In challenging the respondent's order that he be deported, the petitioner makes two contentions. He first argues that the Service abused its discretion in denying his application, based upon alleged hardship, for suspension of his deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1254. In United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S. 72, 77, 77 S.Ct. 618, 621, 1 L.Ed.2d 652 (1957), the Supreme Court wrote: "Suspension of deportation is a matter of discretion and of administrative grace, not mere eligibility; discretion must be exercised even though statutory prerequisites have been met." In the light of the record before us here, we are not persuaded that the petitioner has been the victim of an abusive exercise of discretion. Cf. Kasravi v. I&NS, 400 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1968); Llacer v. I&NS, 388 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Kwang Shick Myung v. I&NS, 368 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1966).
Next, the petitioner argues that he is exempt from deportation by reason of section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(f), and our court's decision in Vitales v. I&NS, 443 F.2d 343 (9th Cir. 1971).1 This contention must be rejected under the authority of United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663 (9th Cir. 1972).
The basis of our reasoning in Vitales, as well as in Errico v. I&NS, 349 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1965), aff'd, 385 U.S. 214, 87 S.Ct. 473, 17 L.Ed.2d 318 (1966), was that section 241(f) was designed to afford some protection to an alien from being deported after establishing familial ties with resident citizens of the United States. That reason does not exist in the case at bar. The petitioner married after he entered this country as a nonimmigrant, and a United States citizen child was born as a result of that union. The wife and child, however, now reside in Korea, the country of which the petitioner is a citizen. To sustain the petitioner's argument would be to promote familial disunity rather than, as intended by Congress in its enactment of section 241(f), to promote it. The petition for review is rejected, and the statutory stay of deportation is vacated.
So ordered.
* The Honorable Talbot Smith, United States District Judge, of Michigan, Detroit Division, sitting by designation.
1 Since the Supreme Court vacated our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cabuco-Flores v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
...214, 223, 87 S.Ct. 473, 479, 17 L.Ed.2d 318 (1966). 6 In view of the dictum to the contrary in Chung Wook Myung v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 468 F.2d 627, 628 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1972), this opinion has been circulated to all the active members of the court. No judge has requested th......
-
Federiso v. Eric H. Holder Jr
...beyond those set forth in the relevant governing regulations). The BIA's opinion mentions two Ninth Circuit cases, Myung v. INS, 468 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1972), Kalezic v. INS, 647 F.2d 920 (9th Cir.1981), which merit brief discussion here. In Myung, we held that an alien was ineligible for a ......
-
Lai Haw Wong v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv.
...country, would promote familial disunity rather than union, contrary to the purpose of § 241(f). Chung Wook Myung v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 468 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.1972); United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663 (9th The basis for admission of Mrs. Wong and two sons was the miscon......
-
Matter of Da Lomba
...further the Congressional purpose underlying the statute. Cf. Lai Haw Wong v. INS, 474 F.2d 739 (9 Cir.1973); Chung Wook Myung v. INS, 468 F.2d 627 (9 Cir.1972); United States v. Palmer, 458 F.2d 663 (9 The Supreme Court has interpreted section 241(f) twice. In INS v. Errico, supra, the Cou......