Nai Cheng Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, No. 76--1065

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL; McENTEE
Citation537 F.2d 566
PartiesNAI CHENG CHEN and Yuan Jung Chen, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 76--1065
Decision Date13 July 1976

Page 566

537 F.2d 566
NAI CHENG CHEN

and
Yuan Jung Chen, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 76--1065.
United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit.
Argued May 6, 1976.
Decided July 13, 1976.

Page 567

Stanley R. Lapon, Cambridge, Mass., with whom Altman & Lapon, Cambridge, Mass., was on brief, for petitioners.

Richard I. Chaifetz, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Philip Wilens, Acting Chief, Government Regulations and Labor Section, Crim. Div., and James P. Morris, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on brief, for respondent.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

McENTEE, Circuit Judge.

Petitioners, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of China. Mr. Chen was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in September, 1970; he later changed his status to that of a nonimmigrant student. His wife entered the United States as a nonimmigrant spouse in December, 1971. Both husband and wife received several extensions in the time of their stay, the last of which expired on June 30, 1973. The couple stayed beyond that date, but then requested and were granted the privilege of departing voluntarily on or before June 10, 1974. When they failed to depart by that date, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) instituted deportation proceedings. At the deportation hearing petitioners objected to the admission of certain evidence, specifically their passports and I--94 forms, 1 on the ground that these items had been obtained as a result of an unconstitutional custodial interrogation of Mrs. Chen. The immigration judge admitted the items, found both petitioners to be deportable, 2 and granted them voluntary departure. Petitioners thereupon took their case to the Board of Immigration Appeals. 3 The Board rejected their claims and the instant petition for review followed.

Petitioners' complaints concerning the admissibility of documents derive from a single event, viz. a visit to their home in Hyannis, Massachusetts by an immigration inspector on August 19, 1974. On that occasion the inspector identified himself to Mrs. Chen who was at home with her three children, and inquired as to her identity. He asked her the whereabouts of her husband and was told that he was at work. The inspector also inquired whether a particular attorney (whom he named) represented the couple in immigration matters

Page 568

and Mrs. Chen responded affirmatively. He then requested and was given the passports of Mrs. Chen and her husband. She asked when their passports would be returned and was told that this would occur at an immigration hearing of which they would be notified by mail.

Petitioners first contend that since the INS already possessed information indicating the couple might be deportable and had focussed an investigation on them, it was required to give Mrs. Chen the warnings enunciated in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) prior to questioning her and that in the absence of such warnings the documentary evidence obtained by the INS officer should have been excluded at the deportation hearing. However, this claim cannot prevail. Miranda involved a criminal prosecution, whereas deportation proceedings are presently viewed as civil in nature. See Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594, 72 S.Ct. 512, 96 L.Ed. 586 (1952). But cf. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 237, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). '(T)he rules laid down in Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964) and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) requiring the presence of counsel during interrogation, . . . are not applicable to such proceedings.' Lavoie v. INS, 418 F.2d 732, 734 (9th Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 854, 91 S.Ct. 72, 27 L.Ed.2d 92 (1970). And the full panoply of other procedural and substantive safeguards which are provided in a criminal proceeding are not required at a deportation hearing. See Chavez-Raya v. INS, 519 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1975); Ah Chiu Pang v. INS,368 F.2d 637, 639 (3d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1037, 87 S.Ct. 1490, 18 L.Ed.2d 601 (1967). Hence, even if Mrs. Chen were assumed to have been in custody at the time she was questioned, 4 her statements as well as the documents she turned over were admissible at the deportation hearing despite the absence of Miranda warnings. Chavez-Raya v. INS, supra at 402; see also Strantzalis v. INS, 465 F.2d 1016 (3d Cir. 1972); Lavoie v. INS, supra; Nason v. INS, 370 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1967).

Petitioners also contend that it was a denial of due process and equal protection for the INS officer not to have given Mrs. Chen Miranda warnings since aliens interviewed at Immigration Service offices are routinely given such warnings. However, this claim is without merit. The INS provides Miranda warnings when questioning aliens in custody at its offices in order to maintain the option of bringing a criminal prosecution. In the present case, as noted above, the proceedings are essentially civil and the interview with Mrs. Chen was not custodial in nature, see n. 4 supra.

Petitioners also urge that the failure of the INS to notify their counsel of record of the intended questioning of Mrs. Chen was a violation of both 5 U.S.C. § 500(f) and the American Bar Association's Code of Professional Responsibility. We are unpersuaded by either claim. Their reliance on § 500(f) 5 is inapposite. In the instant case the interview occurred during a preliminary

Page 569

stage, before the INS had instituted formal deportation proceedings against petitioners. 6 While § 500(f) requires that when a participant in a matter before an agency is represented by counsel any notice or other written communication directed to the participant shall be given to counsel, the statute would not appear to bar an agency from conducting preliminary investigations of possible violations of the laws it is charged with enforcing.

Petitioners also point to a portion of the ABA's Code of Professional Responsibility which restricts an attorney's communications 'with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer.' 7 They claim that the immigration officer violated this rule by failing to inform their counsel in advance of the investigative interview, and that consequently all information elicited, including the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Parcham v. I.N.S., No. 81-1529
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 13, 1985
    ...72 S.Ct. at 521, the alien may not invoke the full panoply of safeguards available to the criminal defendant. E.g., Nai Chang Chen v. INS, 537 F.2d 566, 568 (1 Cir.1976). Therefore, the immigration judge and BIA could consider the pending charges against Parcham as some evidence that he pro......
  • Matter of Sandoval, Interim Decision Number 2725
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • August 20, 1979
    ...560, 563 (9 Cir.1977); LeTourneur v. INS, 538 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9 Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1044 (1977); Nai Cheng Chen v. INS, 537 F.2d 566 (1 Cir.1976); Avila-Gallegos v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5 Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 946 (1971). See also Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 21......
  • US v. Montoya-Robles, No. 96-CR-0064-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • August 7, 1996
    ...("Since deportation proceedings are not criminal in nature ... there was no necessity for Miranda warnings."); Nai Cheng Chen v. I.N.S., 537 F.2d 566 (1st Cir.1976) ("... even if Mrs. Chen were assumed to have been in custody at the time she was questioned, her statement, as well as the doc......
  • Navia-Duran v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, NAVIA-DURA
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 9, 1977
    ...Miranda warnings does not render an otherwise voluntary statement inadmissible. Nai Cheng Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 537 F.2d 566 (1st Cir. 1976). See also Chavez-Raya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 519 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1975); Lavoie v. Immigration and Nat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Parcham v. I.N.S., No. 81-1529
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • August 13, 1985
    ...72 S.Ct. at 521, the alien may not invoke the full panoply of safeguards available to the criminal defendant. E.g., Nai Chang Chen v. INS, 537 F.2d 566, 568 (1 Cir.1976). Therefore, the immigration judge and BIA could consider the pending charges against Parcham as some evidence that he pro......
  • Matter of Sandoval, Interim Decision Number 2725
    • United States
    • U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
    • August 20, 1979
    ...560, 563 (9 Cir.1977); LeTourneur v. INS, 538 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9 Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1044 (1977); Nai Cheng Chen v. INS, 537 F.2d 566 (1 Cir.1976); Avila-Gallegos v. INS, 441 F.2d 1245 (5 Cir.1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 946 (1971). See also Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 21......
  • US v. Montoya-Robles, No. 96-CR-0064-S.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Utah
    • August 7, 1996
    ...("Since deportation proceedings are not criminal in nature ... there was no necessity for Miranda warnings."); Nai Cheng Chen v. I.N.S., 537 F.2d 566 (1st Cir.1976) ("... even if Mrs. Chen were assumed to have been in custody at the time she was questioned, her statement, as well as the doc......
  • Navia-Duran v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, NAVIA-DURA
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 9, 1977
    ...Miranda warnings does not render an otherwise voluntary statement inadmissible. Nai Cheng Chen v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 537 F.2d 566 (1st Cir. 1976). See also Chavez-Raya v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 519 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1975); Lavoie v. Immigration and Nat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT