Interim Decision #1814 

MATTER OF NG 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-16893733 

Decided by Board December 11,1963 

(1) Designation of country of deportation within step 3 of section 243(a), 

Immigration and Nationality Act, is solely at the discretion of the Attorney 

General. 

(2) A Chinese crewman who arrived in the United States on a Netherlands vessel 

may be deported to that country under step 3 of section 243 (a) of the Act and 

what the Netherlands may do after accepting the alien is of no consequence 

under the statute. 

CRAnce: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 C.S.C. 1251(a) (2)3—Remained 

longer—nonimmigrant crewman . 

This case comes forward on appeal from an order entered by the 

special inquiry officer on October 10, 1963, denying the respondent's 

application requesting that his deportation to the Netherlands be withheld as provided in section 243 (h) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act and directing that he be deported from the United States to the 

Republic of China on Formosa on the charge set forth in the order to 

show cause. The special inquiry officer further directed that the 

respondent be deported to the Netherlands in the event the aforenaraed 

country advises the Attorney General that it is unwilling to accept him, 

the respondent, into its territory and it was further directed that he 

be deported to Hong Kong in the event the aforenamed country advises 

the Attorney General that it was unwilling to accept the respondent 

into its territory. The respondent, a 80-year-old male, native and 

citizen of China, has resided continuously in the United States since 

last entering at Port Everglades, Florida on or about September 7, 

1962 as a nonimmigrant crewman, authorized to remain in the United 

States the period of time his vessel remained in port, in no event to 

exceed 29 days. He failed to comply with the terms of his admission 

and has remained in the United States without authority. 

428 
Interim Decision. #1314 

Deportation proceedings were instituted against the respondent on 

October 3, 1963. Hearings in deportation proceedings were held at 

New York, New York on October 7 and October 10, 1963. The record 

reflects that counsel and the respondent admitted the truth of the 

factual allegations set forth in the order to show cause and conceded 

deportability on the charge stated therein. The evidence in this record clearly establishes that the respondent is subject to deportation 

under section 241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in 

that, after admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) 

of the Act, he remained in the United States for a longer time than 

permitted. 

It is conceded that the respondent would not be subject to physical 

persecution in the event of his deportation to the Republic of China 

on Formosa (p. 3) . The respondent was sailing on a vessel of Netherlands registry at the time of his arrival in the United States on September 7, 1962. The Service is in possession of a valid Netherlands 

seaman's book issued to the respondent at Amsterdam, Holland on 

October 11, 1961. The Service also has possession of a Hong Kong 

seaman's identification book issued to the respondent at the British 

Crown Colony of Hong Kong on November 3, 1959. The validity of 

the latter document expired on November 2, 1962 (p. 5). The respondent testified he signed on a Dutch ship at Hong Kong and went 

to Holland; that after the Netherlands seaman's identification book 

was issued to him at Amsterdam, Holland on November 11, 1961 he 

sailed out of Holland for a period of nine months prior to his arrival 

in the United States in September 1962 (p. 8). The respondent first 

entered Hong Kong from China in 1957 where he resided until 1959. 

The respondent has no family in Hong Kong or the Netherlands. He 

testified that he always had a berth on a, Netherlands ship when sailing 

from that country. 

Counsel's argument that the Service should attempt to deport the 

respondent to Hong Kong before directing his deportation to the 

Netherlands in the event the Republic of China on Formosa refuses 

to accept him is without merit. The country of selection is solely 

within the discretion of the Attorney General (cf. Horn. Bin, v. Esperdy, 209 F. Supp. 3). There is no basis for counsel's obscure and 

chimerical charges that if the respondent's deportation to the Netherlands is effected the end result will be his deportation to Communist 

China with whom the Netherlands Government maintains diplomatic 

relations. Section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

provides the procedure for deportation of aliens. First the alien is 

given the choice of designating the country to which he prefers to be 

deported or as in this case no designation is made by the alien, his 

deportation shall be directed to the country of which the alien is a sub429 
Interim Decision #1314 

ject national provided that country is willing to accept him. If such 

country fails to advise the Attornel General that it will accept him 

within the set forth in the statute, the alien's deportation will be 

effected as provided in step (3) of section 243(a) of the Act. Step 

No. (3) allows for deportation to any one of seven categories of countries within the discretion of the Attorney General. The Service 

notes that the Netherlands Government has indicated its willingness 

to accept the respondent into the Netherlands. The validity of the 

respondent's Hong Kong seaman's identification book expired on November 2, 1962. His testimony shows that he has not lived in that 

country since 1959. In this connection the respondent's deportation 

to Holland is warranted under alternative provisions (1) and (2) of 

step (3) of section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Ant. 

A valid seaman's identification book was issued to the respondent 

by the Netherlands Government at Amsterdam on November 11, 1961 

and as previously noted he sailed from Holland aboard vessels of 

Netherlands registry for at least nine months prior to his arrival in the 

United States as a crewman aboard a vessel of the Netherlands registry in September 1962. There is nothing in this record that in any 

manner supports counsel's claimthat if the respondent is deported to 

Holland he will then be deported to the mainland of China where he 

fears he will suffer physical persecution. It has been held that where 

a Chinese entered the United States as a seaman and overstayed his 

leave his deportation to Holland would not be stayed on the ground 

that the alien once in Holland would be sent out of that country. 

What the Netherlands may do after accepting an alien is of no consequence under the statute (cf. U.S. es rel. Tie Sing Eng v. Mw. f, 

165 F. Supp. 633, air& 266 F.2d 957; cart. den. 361 'U.S. 840 and reh. 

den. 361 U.S. 904). 

After carefully considering all the, evidence of record, the decision 

of the special inquiry officer will be affirmed inasmuch as there is no 

claim of physical persecution as defined under section 243(h) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, the following order 

will be entered. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.. 

430