Interim Decision #1758 

Ittak ix. or lklAv 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-15881685 

Decided by Board July 21, 1967 

Application for withholding of deportation pursuant to section 243(h), Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, on a claim of subjection to economic 

persecution by the British government if deported to Hong Kong, is denied 

in the case of respondent, a citizen of the Republic of China on Formosa, who, 

as well as his wife and children, was horn In Bong Kong and has lived there 

all his life; who does not allege that he or any of his family have ever been 

subjected to persecution there; and who has presented no substantive evidence that if deported to Hong Kong he would be persecuted by reason of his 

race, religion or political opinion. 

GRAMME : 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) IS IIS.O. 1251(a) (2)1—Entered the 

United States after haiing been refused permission to 

land temporarily as a crewman. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT : Thomas Sung, Esquire 

217 Park flow 

New York, New York 10038 

(Brief tiled) 

The case comes forward on appeal from a decision of the special 

inqui4Officer denying respondent's motion to reopen the proceedings 

to allow him to file an application for withholding of deportation 

under section-248(h) of the Imniigration and Nationality Act. 

The record relates to a 55-year-old married male alien, who was 

born in Hong Kong and who is a native of China and a citizen of the 

Republic of China on Taiwan (Formosa), and who arrived in the 

United States as a crewman. His ship entered the port of New York 

on August 24, 1268, and after examination by an officer of the United 

States Immigration and Naturalization Service he was refused permission to land. However, he did effect'entry on August 27, 1968 without authority. He has remained in the United States since that date. 

Daportability is conceded and is thus not in issue. 

A brief summary of the proceedings, to date would appear to be 

305 
Interim. Decision #1753 

in order. On May 18, 1966, the special inquiry officer found respondent 

deportable as charged, but granted voluntary departure. Respondent 

failed to leave as and when directed and consequently a warrant of 

deportation was issued on June 17, 1966. Subsequent to this, respondent twice filed applications for stays of deportation with the District Director, New York, both of which were denied. Then followed 

the motion to reopen the proceedings to allow an application for 

withholding of deportation under section 243 (h). On June 1, 1967, 

the special inqury officer denied the motion, on the basis that respondent had totally failed to present any substantive evidence that he 

would be persecuted if deported to Hong Kong by reason of his race, 

religion or political opinion. The present appeal is from this denial. 

In cooking to have deportation withheld under section 243(h), the 

burden is upon respondent to show that he -would, in fact, be persecuted 

on the basis of race, religion or political beliefs. This is required by 8 

CFR 242.17 (c) -which specifically places upon the applicant the burden 

of proof.' A careful and thorough review of the entire proceedings 

in this case, including the newspaper clippings submitted into evidence, 

fails to show that the respondent has met 'the required burden of 

proof. 

Respondent has came forth with a strange admixture of contentions. 

The first is that if he should return to Hong Kong he would be subjected to economic persecution by the British Government there. He 

states that it is common knowledge that under the present conditions 

in the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong an alien such as himself 

would be subject to harassment by the British Government there. We 

do not agree that this is a matter of common knowledge, and respondent 

has not come forth with one item of evidence that he would be persecuted. He, as well as his wife and children, were all born in Hong 

Kong and have lived there all their lives. (The record reveals conflicting information as to -whether respondent has three of four children. 

When he testified at the hearing on May 13, 1966 he stated he had three 

children, but later, on May 10, 1967 when a petition was filed to accord 

him a sixth preference visa status he claimed to have four children, all 

born before the time of the hearing.) Respondent does not allege that 

he or any of his family have ever been harassed, arrested, threatened or 

molested by the authorities and he does not give any reasons why such 

perSecution would now take place if he returned to Hong Kong. We 

reject this first contention. . 

Respondent's second contention on appeal is that there is the possibility that the Red Chinese Government on the mainland might take 

See also Matter. pi Sihasale, Int. Dec. No. 1565; Kern Ng v. PIMA 279 F. 2d 

207, cert. den. 365 U.B. 860, 5 L. ed. 2d 823. 

306 
Interim Decision #1753 

over control of Hong Kong and if this should come to pass he would 

be persecuted by the new Communist government. It is a matter of 

common kowledge, which is supported by the newspaper articles 

submitted by the respondent, that since May 1967 there have been repeated, violent riots occurring in Hong Kong, admittedly sponsored 

and encouraged to harass Hong Kong's British Government, by Chinese communists. But respondent's conclusion that these events will 

result in the Chinese mainland communists taking over control of Hong 

Kong from the British is both speculative and conjectural. Indeed, 

within the past week reports coming out of Hong Kong by way of 

Reuters and Associated Press indicate that recent strong and concerted 

action by Hong Kong police and British army troops has greatly curtailed the terrorism and violence of plat. weeks. 

The possibility that at some future time there might be a change in 

the government of a. country is, a much too tenuous basis to support a 

present withholding of deportation to that country. For respondent 

to contend that there might eventually be a change in the government 

of Hong Kong, and if such does occur he might be subject to persecution 

by the new regime, falls far short of entitling respondent to the relief 

provided by section 248 (h). As we said in Matter of Vardjan, 10 I. & N. 

Dec. 567: 

Respondent argues that section 248(h) contemplates . . . protection against 

any future vagaries in the political scene under which the likelihood of physical 

persecution may be greater than at the present time. We do not agree. Such 

future possibilities are not amenable to proof and consequently their determination is not amenable to the adjudicative process. Only where the likelihood of 

physical persecution presently exists in a particular situation is withholding of 

deportation warranted. 

Finally, with complete 'inconsistency respondent furnishes us with 

a photocopy of a completed Form 1-140, which is a petition to afford 

him a sixth: preference visa classification, and which was filed May 

10, 1967. It is recited on this form that if the petition is granted he 

will travel to Hong Kong to apply to the American Consulate there 

for a visa to enter the United States. (Respondent, being an alien 

crewman, is ineligible for a section 245 adjustment.) Thus, in one 

breath respondent pleads that he not be deported to Hong Kong for 

fear of persecution and in the next breath lie states he plans to voluntarily travel there to obtain a visa. 

We will dismiss the appeal and will order that respondent be deported forthwith. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

It is further ordered that the raspondent be deported to Hong Kong 

on the charge contained in the order to shoW cause: 

307