Ying v. Rogers
Decision Date | 10 February 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2927-59. |
Citation | 180 F. Supp. 618 |
Parties | Peter YING, Wong Chai Liang, Plaintiffs, v. William P. ROGERS, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jack Wasserman and David Carliner, Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs.
Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Edward P. Troxell, Principal Asst. U. S. Atty., John F. Doyle, and Robert J. Asman, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
This is an action against the Attorney General for a declaratory judgment. The two plaintiffs are nationals and citizens of China who entered the United States as nonimmigrant crewmen, overstayed their authorized time, and were ordered deported. The findings of deportability are not challenged. The defendant has moved for summary judgment and plaintiffs also have so moved.
The warrants of deportation direct that plaintiffs be deported "pursuant to law" but plaintiffs contend that the warrants are void because they do not specify the country to which plaintiffs are to be deported. It is conceded that each plaintiff received formal notice that the "country to which his deportation has been directed" is "Hong Kong." However, plaintiffs assert that Hong Kong is not a country within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These questions of law are the only issues involved.
The act of June 27, 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253, governs as to the countries to which aliens may be deported. Among these is the "country from which such alien last entered the United States." The Act does not define the word "country". At the time plaintiffs entered the United States they came from Hong Kong, a British Crown Colony, where they had resided for years. The British Consulate General in San Francisco has advised that consent has been granted by the authorities in Hong Kong for the acceptance of plaintiffs as deportees.
This court does not regard the ruling in Sheng as persuasive.
It is well settled that statutes should be construed, if possible, so as to effectuate the purpose intended and to avoid absurd consequences. Delany v. Moraitis, 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 129, 131. Where language is susceptible of a construction which preserves the usefulness of a statute, the judicial duty rests upon the court to give expression to the intendment of the law. Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp., 305 U.S. 315, 333, 59 S.Ct. 191, 83 L.Ed. 195; United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534, 543, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 84 L.Ed. 1345.
In the instant case the Government proposes to deport from this country the two alien plaintiffs who are here contrary to our laws and to place them...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mai Kai Fong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
...Columbia case formally stipulated that the determination of that case would be governed by the determination of the issues in Ying et al. v. Rogers, 180 F.Supp. 618, which had been instituted in the District Court for the District of Columbia. It was recited in this stipulation that "* * * ......
-
Wong Lum v. Esperdy
...by increasing the number of places to which an alien * * * may be sent." Id., 280 F.2d at page 664. See also, Ying v. Rogers, D.C.D.C.1960, 180 F.Supp. 618. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. So ...