Hee Chan v. Pilliod, 59 C 376.
Decision Date | 25 November 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 59 C 376.,59 C 376. |
Parties | HEE CHAN, Plaintiff, v. Alva L. PILLIOD, District Director, Chicago District, United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
O'Hara & Greenhouse, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
R. Tieken, U. S. Atty. for Northern Dist. of Illinois, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.
Hee Chan, plaintiff herein, was ordered deported after a hearing before a Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In this action (in which jurisdiction is based on 8 U.S.C.A. § 1329, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 1009 and 1011, and the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2201, 2202), plaintiff seeks to have all orders and decisions of the defendant District Director reviewed and to have the said District Director restrained from enforcing said order of deportation.
This matter is before the court on the motion of the defendant District Director for summary judgment.
It is undisputed that plaintiff Hee Chan was born in China; that on August 8, 1950, he entered the United States as a bona fide nonimmigrant and was admitted at Honolulu, Hawaii; that he has since resided continuously in the United States, and, quoting the complaint, that "Certain hearings have been held resulting in an order for deportation, requiring the plaintiff to present himself at the defendant's office ready for deportation to Hong Kong on March 7, 1959."
The certified copy of transcript of hearing had before the Special Inquiry Officer discloses that the proceedings were conducted through an official interpreter because the plaintiff said he could speak and understand only the Chinese language.
The transcript shows that during the hearing, and after the plaintiff had acknowledged receipt of notice of the hearing, the following questions were asked and answers made thereto:
Then, in answer to questions put to him by the Special Inquiry Officer, plaintiff admitted: (1) That he is not a citizen or national of the United States; (2) that he is a native of China and a national of China; (3) that he last entered the United States at Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii on August 10, 1950; (4) that he was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and was authorized to remain in this country only until October 9, 1950; and (5) that he has remained in this country longer than he was permitted.
Again quoting from the transcript:
Plaintiff further testified at the hearing that he is married, has a small daughter, and that both his wife and child live in Hong Kong.
The Special Inquiry Officer asked: "Do you want to apply for the privilege of leaving the United States voluntarily at your own expense instead of being deported?" to which plaintiff replied: "I do not think I would be able to obtain visas or other necessary documentation to go to any other countries outside of the United States."
During the hearing, plaintiff expressed a fear that if he were deported to Communist China he would suffer physical persecution at the hands of the Communists, whereupon the Special Inquiry Officer advised him that he could request a stay of deportation under Section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253(h).
The transcript then shows that after the Special Inquiry Officer had advised Hee Chan, the plaintiff, that he was entering the order of deportation, the following occurred:
Plaintiff's brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment argues that the motion should be denied because "there are many genuine issues of fact in this cause," one of which is "whether or not the entire and complete record necessary to review the matter has been filed." Plaintiff continues, "The record should contain the Order Supervision issued by the defendant to the plaintiff;
and concludes: "These documents are necessary for an adequate review of the case and the record, and, in their absence the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to present secondary evidence of these material documents or supply copies where available."
Plaintiff's motion to compel the defendant District Director to file a complete record ( was denied by another judge of the above listed documents)this court, sitting in summer session. Subsequently, however, this court directed plaintiff to produce said documents and they are now before the court.
A letter dated February 24, 1958, and directed to the plaintiff by the Assistant Director for Deportation, Chicago, informed him that "Pursuant to the order of deportation in your case and Section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, your deportation to China has been directed."
It appears that on March 5, 1959, plaintiff filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service an application for relief as a refugee from Communism under Section 15 of the Act of September 11, 1957 (Public Law 85-316 (85th Congress, First Session), 71 Stat. 643, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 1971a note). Before the court is a copy of such application in which the plaintiff alleges: "(2) That the respondent deems himself a refugee-escapee from a Communist-controlled country, to-wit, China; that he cannot return to such area on account of his political opinions."
It further appears that on March 5, 1959, plaintiff also filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service an application for adjustment of status under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. (8 U.S.C.A. § 1255.)
Section 1255(a) reads:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matter of Peignand, Interim Decision Number 2044
...v. INS, 350 F.2d 87 (9 Cir., 1965). See also U.S. ex rel. Mustafa v. Pederson, 207 F.2d 112 (7 Cir., 1953). 4. Hee Chan v. Pilliod, 178 F. Supp. 793 (U.S.D.C., N.D. Illinois 1959). 5. Espindola v. Barber, 152 F. Supp. 829 (U.S.D.C., N.D. Calif., 6. Espindola v. Barber, supra; Matter of L---......
-
Carpenter v. Flemming, Civ. A. No. 530-F.
... ... Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 1938, 306 U.S. 292, 300, 59 S.Ct. 501, 505, 83 L.Ed. 660. Carrying this definition a step further ... ...
-
Giaimo v. Pederson
...112; Bisaillon v. Hogan, 9 Cir., 257 F.2d 435, 436-437, certiorari denied 358 U.S. 872, 79 S.Ct. 112, 3 L.Ed.2d 104; Hee Chan v. Pilliod, D.C.Ill., 178 F.Supp. 793, 797-798. In the present case appellant was advised at a preliminary hearing on November 24, 1958, of his right to have counsel......