Interim Decision #2693 

MATTER OF CHEUNG 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-16032302 

Decided by Board March 28, 1979 

(1) In Matter of S—Y—L--, 9 I. & N. Dec. 575 (BIA 1962), it was held that an alien who 

was born on the Chinese Mainland could be ordered deported to Formosa (Taiwan) as 

the country of nationality under the provisions of section 243(a) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act because the United States recognized the Nationalist Government as 

the legal government of China. 

(2) In a Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the 

United States and the People's Republic of China issued on December 15, 1978, President Carter announced the recognition by the United States of the government of the 

People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of Chino.. 

(3) As Matter of S—Y—L— may no longer be considered valid law, the proceedings are 

remanded so that the Immigration and Naturalization Service may reformulate its 

policy regarding the designation of county of deportation in cases involving natives and 

citizens of China. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) 18 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2))---Nonimmigrant 

crewman--rerrained longer than permitted 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Jules E. Coven, Esquire George Masterton 

Lebenknff & Coven, Esquires Appellate Trial Attorney 

One East 42nd Street 

New York, New York 10017 Jay D. Steinberg 

Trial Attorney 

/3 Y: MiLhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

In a decision dated August 31, 1977, an immigration judge found the 

respondent deportable as charged, denied his application for withholding of deportation to the People's Republic of China pursuant to section 

243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1253(h), as 

premature in light of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's 

representation that deportation to the People's Republic would not he 

attempted,' and granted the respondent the privilege of voluntary de- 

' Evidence of record on the respondent's application for section 243(h) relief and on his 

earlier claim of asylum is confusing. It appears that the respondent has claimed that he 

690 
Interim Decision #2693 

paxture in lieu of deportation with an order of deportation to the 

People's Republic of China in the event of failure to depart voluntarily. 

Hong Kong was designated as an alternate place of deportation. The 

Immigration and Naturalization Service appeals on the ground that the 

immigration judge erred in designating the People's Republic of China 

as the country of deportation. The record will be remanded to the 

immigration judge for further consideration. 

The respondent is a 26-year-old alien who was born on May 7, 1952, in 

Foochow, China. He was admitted to the United States as a crewman on 

August 18, 1975, and was authorized to remain until his vessel had 

departed, but in no event longer than 29 days. At his August 9, 1977, 

deportation hearing the respondent conceded deportability as an overstay and was granted voluntary departure. Upon advice of counsel, he 

then declined to designate a country of deportation, contending simply 

that he was born on the Chinese Mainland, that he is a citizen of the 

People's Republic of China, and that under step two of section 243(a) of 

the Act, the immigration judge is required to order his deportation to 

the People's Republic. 

Under section 248(a) of the Act, if an alien does not designate a. 

country of deportation, deportation shall first be directed to any country 

of which the alien is a subject national or citizen if such country is willing 

to accept him into its territory. If that cannot be arranged, deportation 

may then be directed without necessarily giving any priority or preference because of their order to any one of seven categories of countries. 

The narrow question raised in this case is what country the respondent 

must be considered a citizen of for purposes of designating a country of 

deportation under section 243(a). 

On the basis of correspondence from the Department of State concerning the respondent's earlier claim of asylum, (Exhibit 2B) the immigration judge has concluded that the respondent is considered a citizen 

of the People's Republic of China by the State Department and that 

accordingly the designation of that country under section 243(a) is 

appropriate. The Immigration and Naturalization Service disagrees, 

citing the Board's decision in Matter of 9 I. & N. Dec. 575 

(BIA 1962). After reviewing several court decisions, the Board concluded in S— Y —L— , that despite the fact that the alien was born on the 

Chinese Mainland and had later fled to Hong Kong, he was nevertheless 

deportable to Formosa (Taiwan) rather than to the People's Republic of 

China because the United States recognized the Nationalist Governfears persecution on the Chinese Mainland and in Hong Kong. Compare Tr. pp. 8-9, with 

Form 1-589 (Request for Asylum in the United States). Resolution of the confusion 

surrounding these applications in not critical at the present time, however; therefore, we 

will not address the matter further but will leave the clarification of these claims to the 

immigration judge in the reopened proceedings. 

691 
Interim Decision #2693 

ment as the legal government of China. See Rogers v. Cheng F n Sheng, 

280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960), cert. denied 364 U.S. 891 (1960); United 

States ex rel. Tom Man v. Murff, , 264 F.2d 926 (2 Cir. 1959); Chi Sheng 

Liu v. Holton, 297 F.2d 740 (9 Cir. 1961). The Service points out that as 

late as 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

reaffirmed the position reached by the Board in S—Y--L--. Cheng v. 

INS, 521 F.2d 1351 (3 Cir. 1975). While the Service's argument was 

persuasive when made, very recent events compel the conclusion that 

Matter of.9—Y—L— must now be overruled. 

In a Joint Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations 

Between the United States of America and the People's Republic of 

China, issued on December 15, 1978, President Jimmy Carter announced the recognition by the United States of the government of the 

People's Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China and 

the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, 

effective January 1, 1979. In enunciating the principles agreed upon by 

the two parties to the Communique, the President emphasized the fact 

that the United States now acknowledges Peking's position that there 

is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China. The eAclakuige of 

ambassadors and the establishment of embassies occurred on March 1, 

1979. 

It is apparent in light of the December 15, 1978, Commnniranp that 

Matter of S —Y--L — may no longer be considered valid law. Therefore, 

we conclude that our most appropriate action at this juncture is to 

remand the present record to the immigration judge so that the Immigration and Naturalization Service may reformulate its positions on this 

issue. Thereafter, the immigration judge should render a new decision 

and certify it to us for review. 

ORDER: The record is remanded to the immigration judge for the 

action indicated in the foregoing opinion. 

692