Document: 352 U.S. 180 77 S.Ct. 252 1 L.Ed.2d 225 Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Petitioner,v.Tom WE SHUNG. No. 43. Argued Nov. 13, 1956. Decided Dec. 17, Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Andrew Reiner, New York City, respondent. Justice CLARK delivered opinion Court. In Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 1955, 349 48, 75 591, 99 L.Ed. 868, we held that an alien, ordered deported by under provisions Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. might test legality such order in a declaratory judgment action brought 10 Administrative Proceedure Act, 60 Stat. 243, 5 U.S.C. 1009, 1009. The sole question to be determined here is whether exclusion entered relevant same 1952 must challenged habeas corpus, or it may also reviewed Procedure Act. Court Appeals latter appropriate remedy. 97 U.S.App.D.C. 25, 227 F.2d 40. We granted certiorari, 351 905, 76 697, because importance administration immigration law. conclude either remedy available seeking review orders. This makes unnecessary us pass upon other questions raised parties. 2 Shung, Chinese presented himself at San Francisco on November 28, 1947, claiming admission States War Brides December 1945, 59 659, (1946 ed.) 232. He testified oath he was blood son American citizen who served armed forces during World II. January 1948 again February 1949, Boards Special Inquiry Shung inadmissible ground had not established alleged relationship. Board Affirmed. first sought judicial this instituted before effective date 1952. His complaint dismissed valid. Tom McGrath, 103 F.Supp. 507, affirmed sub nom. Brownell, 93 32, 207 132. vacated remanded cause District with directions dismiss lack jurisdiction, 346 906, 74 237, 98 405, authority Heikkila Barber, 1953, 345 229, 73 603, 972, which corpus only testing deportation orders 1917. After passage filed suit his action. asserts our ruling Pedreiro permitting requires similar result as However, Government contends rule does apply cases basic differences between those actions cases. urges language, statutory structure, legislative history support its contention. I. 3 At outset constitutionally alien initial into different position from resident against whom proceedings are instituted.1 This, contends, precludes general review. admits these substantive but counters distinction should without significance when all involved form available, scope do believe constitutional status parties strait-jacketed. Nor fact one burden while met afford basis discrimination. Admittedly, excluded aliens their corpus. Citizenship claimants hold 'certificates identity' required 360(c) Act2 validity only. Respondent neither claims citizenship nor did certificate identity, has no bearing case. For proceeding detained least technical custody, puts it. On hand, odium arrest detention present. It follow absence condition would enlarge permissible traditionally permitted law governing remain decision merits rather than corpus.3 unless contrary, 4 insists Congress limited challenges certain language argues finality clause respect exclusion4 limits gist 'the shall final,'5 special inquiry officer (is) final reversed appeal General.' reasons administrative intended, aside alien's exclusion. points exceptions even withhold classes bolstering position. true subsections (b) (d) 236 deny any temporary security well where suffers medical affliction types. But darken meaning word 'final' used giving chameleonic characteristics indulge choplogic. fact, regulations seem give connotation See CFR, Rev. 242.61(e). Furthermore, more, pointed out 'cutting off' 'would run counter $12 Act.' (349 51, 594.) 'Exemptions * lightly presumed,' Marcello Bonds, 302, 310, 757, 762, 1107, made clear supersedure expanded mode cannot modified. therefore provision regard refers finality. III. testimony hearings bill, statements floor debate time supported believe, however, Senate Report 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.,6 statement managers part House accompanied Conference Report,7 reflect intention regard. Report, after reciting limiting 'judicial through writ corpus' been stricken stated intended 'expand (the of) beyond existing law.' (Emphasis supplied.) reported careful consideration problem review' they were satisfied 'procedures provided bill within framework pattern safeguard procedure afforded both proceedings.' interpretation full accord significant reports sponsoring managing legislation each house Congress. 6 far more expeditious judgment, experience indicate.8 weighed necessity make choice wishes use challenging case, 7 Since Nishimura Ekiu 1892, 142 651, 12 336, 35 1146, involving entry decisions executive officers, acting powers expressly conferred congress, due process page 660, U.S., 339 Nevertheless, facts include fair hearing conformity grounds. 'It if lawful permanent remains physically present there, person protection Fifth Amendment.' Kwong Hai Chew Colding, 344 590, 596, 472, 477, 576. Section 360(c), 66 273, 1503, provides part: 'A issued identity subsection possession thereof, port entry, subject relating conduct States. A determination entitled court competent jurisdiction otherwise.' suggest, course, never borders country avail bringing abroad. 236(c), 200, 1226(c), 1226(c): '(c) Except (d), every case treaty now hereafter made, 242(b), 210, 1252(b) 1252(b), 'In treaty, *.' 'Exclusion S. 3455 716, predecessor bills, determinations exercise discretion omitted instant bill. omission grant consular expand p. 28. '(2) Having extensively considered review, conferees procedures adapted necessities national economic social welfare citizens country, H.R.Rep. 2096, Sess., 127. original former 19, 1950.

Category: 1