From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chan Chuen v. Esperdy

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 30, 1960
285 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1960)

Summary

In Chan Chuen, this Court held that for purposes of designating a country of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a), the term "country" as used in that statute encompassed Hong Kong (then, a British colony).

Summary of this case from Kin Wan Tso v. United States Department of Justice

Opinion

No. 117, Docket 26250.

Argued December 7, 1960.

Decided December 30, 1960.

Jules E. Coven, New York City (Abraham Lebenkoff and Milton J. Freundlich, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., S.D.N.Y., New York City (S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U.S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.


Plaintiff, a seaman subject to deportation, appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York District, in an action he brought to review an order of the Attorney General directing his deportation to Hong Kong. The appeal is based on the assertion that Hong Kong, a colony of the United Kingdom, is not a "country" within the meaning of § 243(a) (7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a) (7), under which deportation is ordered.

The word "country" has no fixed meaning, and should be construed in accordance with the purpose of the particular legislation. Burnet v. Chicago Portrait Co., 285 U.S. 1, 52 S.Ct. 275, 76 L.Ed. 587. Section 243(a)(7), in authorizing deportation "to any country which is willing to accept such alien into its territory," is obviously intended to avoid arbitrary restrictions on the places to which a deportable alien may be sent. In line with the general Congressional policy of facilitating the deportation of deportable aliens, see Conf.Rep. No. 3112, Sept. 19, 1950, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 2 U.S. Code Cong.Serv., pp. 3899, 3911 (1950), we think that any place possessing a government with authority to accept an alien deported from the United States can qualify as a "country" under the statute. Whatever the distribution of power between Hong Kong's local, partially autonomous government and Great Britain, Hong Kong is a "country" under the above definition.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Chan Chuen v. Esperdy

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Dec 30, 1960
285 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1960)

In Chan Chuen, this Court held that for purposes of designating a country of deportation under former 8 U.S.C. § 1253(a), the term "country" as used in that statute encompassed Hong Kong (then, a British colony).

Summary of this case from Kin Wan Tso v. United States Department of Justice

noting that "[t]he word `country' has no fixed meaning" and deciding, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that "any place possessing a government with authority to accept an alien deported from the United States can qualify as a `country'," including then-British colony Hong Kong

Summary of this case from Cheung v. U.S.

In Chan Chuen v. Esperdy, 285 F.2d 353 (2 Cir. 1960) (per curiam), we refused to accept the technical argument that Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom and therefore not a "country," and said: "[A]ny place possessing a government with authority to accept an alien deported from the United States can qualify as a `country' under the statute."

Summary of this case from Leong Leun Do v. Esperdy
Case details for

Chan Chuen v. Esperdy

Case Details

Full title:CHAN CHUEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. P.A. ESPERDY, District Director…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Dec 30, 1960

Citations

285 F.2d 353 (2d Cir. 1960)

Citing Cases

Kin Wan Tso v. United States Department of Justice

Notwithstanding that Tso had arrived in the United States directly from the United Kingdom after having lived…

Ying v. Kennedy

Rather, it is an ambiguous term and its meaning in § 243(a) of the Act must be arrived at by a consideration…