Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/395/62/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:51:53+00:00

Document:
Court, on the basis of their previous determinations, rejected respondent's renewed claim for a § 24(b) hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the matter was not res judicata because those determinations were based on the premise that respondent's ship was still in port; now, however, the ship had departed, and respondent had still not been deported. The court concluded that § 252(b) only authorized respondent's "summary deportation aboard the vessel on which he arrived or, within a very limited time after that vessel's departure, aboard another vessel pursuant to arrangements made before [his] vessel departed," and held that respondent was entitled to a de novo hearing under § 242(b).
1. The applicable procedure governing a request for asylum made by a crewman against whom § 252(b) proceedings have been instituted was the one set forth in 8 CFR § 253.1(e), which was promulgated under the Attorney General's statutory power to act upon an alien's request for asylum. Pp. 395 U. S. 69-72.
2. An alien crewman whose temporary landing permit is properly revoked pursuant to § 252(b) is not entitled to a § 242(b) hearing merely because his deportation is not finally arranged or effected when his vessel leaves, and, under such circumstances, the Attorney General may provide (as he did in 8 CFR § 253.1(e)) that the crewman's asylum request be heard by a district director. Pp. 395 U. S. 72-79.
3. Since the Attorney General is authorized by an amendment to § 23(h) made after respondent's January, 1965, hearing before the District Director to withhold deportation of an alien found to be subject to "persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion," and not just "physical persecution," the case is remanded for a new hearing before the District Director. P. 395 U. S. 79.

References: § 24
 § 252
 § 242
 § 252
 § 253
 § 252
 § 242
 § 253
 § 23