Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/402/49
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 13:44:18
Document Index: 20568309

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 203']

George K. ROSENBERG, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Petitioner, v. YEE CHIEN WOO. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews George K. ROSENBERG, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Petitioner, v. YEE CHIEN WOO.
402 U.S. 49 (91 S.Ct. 1312, 28 L.Ed.2d 592)
George K. ROSENBERG, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Petitioner, v. YEE CHIEN WOO.
[HTML] Charles Gordon, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Respondent, Yee Chien Woo, is a native of mainland China, a Communist country, who fled that country in 1953 and sought refuge in Hong Kong. He lived in Hong Kong until 1959 when he came to the United States as a visitor to sell merchandise through a concession at a trade fair in Portland, Oregon. After a short stay, he returned to Hong Kong only to come back to the United States in 1960 to participate in the San Diego Fair and International Trade Mart to promote his Hong Kong business. Thereafter he remained in the United States although he continued to maintain his clothing business in Hong Kong until 1965. In 1965 respondent's wife and son obtained temporary visitor's permits and joined him in this country. By 1966 all three had overstayed their permits and were no longer authorized to remain in this country. After the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings, Yee Chien Woo applied for an immigrant visa claiming a 'preference' as an alien who had fled a Communist country fearing persecution as defined in § 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended, 79 Stat. 913, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7) (1964 ed., Supp. V).
The Immigration and Naturalization Service appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That court affirmed the District Court because in its view whether Yee Chien Woo was 'firmly resettled' in Hong Kong was 'irrelevant' to consideration of his application for an immigration quota. It stated:
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a case, decided after the Ninth Circuit decision below faced the issue of the relevancy of resettlement and expressly declined to follow the Ninth Circuit interpretation of the statute.
Shen v. Esperdy, 428 F.2d 293 (1970). We granted certiorari in this case to resolve the conflict. 400 U.S. 864, 91 S.Ct. 99, 27 L.Ed.2d 103 (1970).
Since 1947 the United States has had a congressionally enacted immigration and naturalization policy which granted immigration preferences to 'displaced persons,' 'refugees,' or persons who fled certain areas of the world because of 'persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion.' Although the language through which Congress has implemented this policy since 1947 has changed slightly from time to time the basic policy has remained constant to provide a haven for homeless refugees and to fulfill American responsibilities in connection with the International Refugee Organization of the United Nations. This policy is currently embodied in the 'Seventh Preference' of § 203 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), which provides in pertinent part:
The Ninth Circuit supported its conclusion that the 'firmly resettled' concept was irrelevant under § 203(a)(7) upon two bases. First, the court noted that the 'firmly resettled' language was first introduced in the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 1009, and was then expressly stated in the Refugee Relief Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 400, both of which are predecessors of the present legislation.
However, when the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 was extended in 1957, the 'firmly resettled' language was dropped in favor of a formula defining an eligible refugee as 'any alien who, because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or political opinion has fled or shall flee' from certain areas. 71 Stat. 643. The 1957 Act was then followed by the Fair Share Refugee Act of 1960, 74 Stat. 504, which defined 'refugee' as one 'not a national of the area in which the application is made, and (3) (who) is within the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.' Finally, the present legislation was added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965. From the 1957 abandonment of the words 'firmly resettled' the Court of Appeals determined that Congress had purposely rejected 'resettlement' as a test for eligibility for refugee status.
While Congress did not carry the words 'firmly resettled' over into the 1957, 1960, and 1965 Acts from the earlier legislation, Congress did introduce a new requirement into the 1957 Actthe requirement of 'flight.' The 1957 Act, as well as the present law, speaks of persons who have 'fled' to avoid persecution.
Both the terms 'firmly resettled' and 'fled' are closely related to the central theme of all 23 years of refugee legislationthe creation of a haven for the world's homeless people. This theme is clearly underlined by the very titles of the Acts over the years from the Displaced Persons Act in 1948 through the Refugee Relief Act and the Fair Share Refugee Act of 1960. Respondent's reliance on the Fair Share Refugee Act of 1960 to show that Congress abandoned the 'firmly resettled' concept is particularly misplaced because Congress envisioned that legislation not only as the means through which this country would fulfill its obligations to refugees, but also as an incentive to other nations to do likewise.
Far from encouraging resettled refugees to leave one secure haven for another, the Act established United States quotas as a percentage25%of the refugees absorbed by all other cooperating nations. The Fair Share Refugee Act, like its successor and predecessors, was enacted to help alleviate the suffering of homeless persons and the political instability associated with their plight. It was never intended to open the United States to refugees who had found shelter in another nation and had begun to build new lives. Nor could Congress have intended to make refugees in flight from persecution compete with all of the world's resettled refugees for the 10,200 entries and permits afforded each year under § 203(a)(7). Such an interpretation would subvert the lofty goals embodied in the whole pattern of our refugee legislation.
In short, we hold that the 'resettlement' concept is not irrelevant. It is one of the factors which the Immigration and Naturalization Service must take into account to determine whether a refugee seeks asylum in this country as a consequence of his flight to avoid persecution. The District Director applied the correct legal standard when he determined that § 203(a)(7) requires that 'physical presence in the United States (be) a consequence of an alien's flight in search of refuge,' and further that 'the physical presence must be one which is reasonably proximate to the flight and not one following a flight remote in point of time or interrupted by intervening residence in a third country reasonably constituting a termination of the original flight in search of refuge.'
On March 8, 1966, the respondent, who fled mainland China for Hong Kong in 1953 and has resided in the United States since May 22, 1960, filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service an application for adjustment of status pursuant to § 203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1153(a)(7) (1964 ed., Supp. V). By the terms of § 203(a)(7) applicants for adjustment of status are required to show:
In the face of the unambiguous language of § 203(a)(7) and this clear legislative history, the Court today holds that a requirement of firm resettlement may properly be read back into the statute so as not to subvert what it considers to be the 'central theme' of refugee legislation'the creation of a haven for the world's homeless people.' I have no doubt that in enacting refugee legislation Congress intended to provide a haven for the homeless. But the Court offers no reason to believe that Congress did not also intend to help those others who have fled their homeland because of oppression, have found a temporary refuge elsewhere, and now desire to immigrate to the United States. Congress may well have concluded that such people should be preferred to immigrants who have not suffered such hardship. The clear language of § 203(a)(7) demonstrates to me that this was exactly what Congress intended to accomplish.
Whether the Attorney General has discretion concerning the order in which § 203(a)(7) applications are processed is a different issue and one that is not before us. The Attorney General has not sought to invoke whatever discretion he may have to process the applications of the homeless before turning to those whose plight may be thought less pressing.
Indeed it appears that in many years a number of the visas annually available for § 203(a)(7) applicants have gone unused.
Section 203(c), 8 U.S.C. 1153(c) (1964 ed., Supp. V), which provides that visas shall be issued to eligible immigrants in the order in which a petition in behalf of each such immigrant is filed with the Attorney General, does not by its terms apply to visas issued pursuant to § 203(a)(7). And Senator Kennedy stated that under § 203(a)(7) 'the cases of greatest need can be processed at once.' 111 Cong.Rec. 24227.