Rogers v. Quan, 396
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | CLARK |
| Citation | 2 L.Ed.2d 1252,78 S.Ct. 1076,357 U.S. 193 |
| Parties | William P. ROGERS, Attorney General, Petitioner, v. Jimmie QUAN, also known as Quan Dung Ngoon, et al |
| Docket Number | No. 396,396 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1958 |
v.
Jimmie QUAN, also known as Quan Dung Ngoon, et al.
Mr. Leonard B. Sand, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner.
Mr. David Carliner, Washington, D.C., for the respondents.
Page 194
Mr. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 78 S.Ct. 1072. The five respondents are natives of China who came to the United States seeking admission between 1949 and 1954, four of them arriving before the effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Like petitioner in Leng May Ma, all were paroled into the United States, and all have been ordered excluded. They applied for stays of deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,1 and upon refusal, filed complaints in the District Court seeking judgments declaring their nondeportability to China, directing considerarion of their claims under § 243(h), and restraining the Attorney General from deporting them. The complaints were dismissed by the District Court, but the Court of Appeals held that excluded aliens on parole are 'within the United States' for purposes of § 243(h), 101 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 248 F.2d 89. Because of the conflict with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Leng May Ma, we granted certiorari. 1957, 355 U.S. 861, 78 S.Ct. 95, 2 L.Ed.2d 67. We have concluded that respondents, like petitioner in Leng May Ma, are ineligible for stays of deportation under § 243(h). However, because of the importance of this problem in the administration of the immigration laws, we deem it appropriate to deal specifically with a contention not directly asserted by petitioner in Leng May Ma.
The deportation of excluded aliens under the Immigration and Nationality Act is authorized in § 237(a) of Chapter 4, wherein it is provided that an alien excluded
Page 195
under the Act 'shall be immediately deported to the country whence he came * * *.' 66 Stat. 201, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a). A similar provision existed in the immediate predecessor to § 237(a), which was § 18 of the Immigration Act of 1917.2 Deportation in expulsion proceedings is separately provided for under the present Act in § 243 of Chapter 5, subsection (h) of which, of course, contains the authority which respondents seek to invoke in this case. 66 Stat. 212, 8 U.S.C. § 1253, 8 U.S.C.A. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Siu Fung Luk v. Rosenberg, 22672.
...connection with exclusion proceedings. In Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 78 S.Ct. 1072, 2 L.Ed.2d 1246 (1958), and Rogers v. Quan, 357 U.S. 193, 78 S.Ct. 1076, 2 L.Ed.2d 1252 (1958), the Supreme Court dealt with the distinction between exclusion and expulsion, and concluded that alien......
-
United States v. Esperdy
...the boundary line." Kaplan v. Tod, 267 U.S. 228, 230, 45 S.Ct. 257, 69 L.Ed. 585 (1925); see Leng May Ma v. Barber, supra; Rogers v. Quan, 357 U.S. 193, 78 S.Ct. 1076, 2 L.Ed.2d 1252 As a result an alien paroled under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d) (5) cannot claim the procedural protections—including ......
-
Mariscal-Sandoval v. Ashcroft, 02-71925.
...status from that of one seeking admission to that of one legally considered within the United States." Id. (quoting Rogers v. Quan, 357 U.S. 193, 196, 78 S.Ct. 1076, 2 L.Ed.2d 1252 (1958)). In this case, the fact that the INS delayed for over two months before reinstating Page 856 parole li......
-
United States v. Murff
...States ex rel. Tie Sing Eng v. Murff, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1958, 165 F.Supp. 633, affirmed 2 Cir., 1959, 266 F.2d 957. 24 Rogers v. Quan, 1958, 357 U.S. 193, 78 S.Ct. 1076, 2 L.Ed.2d 25 2 Cir., 1959, 264 F.2d 926. 26 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 237(a), 66 Stat. 201, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(......