Document: 357 U.S. 185 78 S.Ct. 1072 2 L.Ed.2d 1246 LENG MAY MA, Petitioner,v.Bruce G. BARBER, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, San Francisco District. No. 105. Argued May 20, 1958. Decided June 16, Mr. Joseph S. Hertogs, Francisco, Cal., for the petitioner. Leonard B. Sand, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 This is a habeas corpus case involving § 243(h) Nationality Act, which authorizes Attorney General 'to withhold deportation any alien within United States to country in his would be subject physical persection. * *'1 Claiming an 'within States' by reason her parole this while admissibility was being determined, petitioner contends that she eligible receive benefactions 243(h). The section applicable only aliens who, contemplation law, have entered States. He argues has never enjoyed status because eventually found ineligible entry ordered excluded. Court denied writ corpus, Appeals affirmed. 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 85. We granted certiorari. 1957, 353 981, 77 1283, 1141. conclude petitioner's did not alter as excluded or otherwise bring meaning Petitioner native China who arrived 1951 claiming citizenship on ground father citizen. Pending determination claim, at first held custody, but later, August 1952, released parole. Some three months thereafter, having failed establish claim citizenship, excluded, Board She surrendered January 1954, thereafter applied stay under alleged pending persecution probable death hands existing government. Her petition followed administrative notification ineligibility relief section. does challenge validity exclusion order proceedings culminating therein. merely virtue presence parolee States,' hence covered question, therefore, wholly one statutory construction. 3 It important note outset our immigration laws long made distinction between those come shores seeking admission, such petitioner, are after entry, irrespective its legality. In latter instance recognized additional rights privileges extended former category 'on threshold initial entry.' Shaughnessy v. ex rel. Mezei, 1953, 345 206, 212, 73 625, 629, 97 L.Ed. 956. See Kwong Hai Chew Colding, 344 590, 596, 472, 477, 576. carefully preserved Title II Act. Chapter 42 subjects admission 'exclusion proceedings' determine whether they 'shall allowed enter shall deported.' 66 Stat. 200, 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), U.S.C.A. 1226(a). On other hand, 53 concerns itself with already 'expulsion,' distinguished from 'exclusion,' if fall certain 'general classes deportable aliens.' 204, 1251, 1251. Proceedings expulsion 5 commonly referred 'deportation proceedings.' Parenthetically, word 'deportation' appears also 4 refer return country, use there reflects none technical gloss accompanying art 5. For over half century detention custody legally constitute though physically 215, 630; Ju Toy, 1905, 198 253, 263, 25 644, 646, 49 1040; Nishimura Ekiu States, 1892, 142 651, 661, 12 336, 339, 35 1146. seems quite clear so confined purposes This, fact, conceded respondents companion case, Rogers Quan, 193 1076. Our question granting temporary somehow effects change alien's legal status. 212(d)(5) generally codification practice pursuant paroled,4 Congress specifically provided regarded alien,' continue dealt same manner applicant States.'5 (Emphasis added.) Petitioner's concept effect certainly finds no support language. previously had occasion define Kaplan Tod, 1925, 267 228, 45 257, 258, 69 585, paroled private Immigrant Aid Society deportation. questions posed were 'dwelling naturalization statute, 'entered (was) purpose limitations. Holmes disposed problem explicitly equating detention: 6 'The appellant could lawfully landed *, until 'could dwelt States.' Zartarian Billings, 204 170, 175, 27 182, 183, 51 428. Moreover Ellis Island stopped boundary line kept unless right should declared. (646), 1040. When prison bounds enlarged committing Hebrew Society, nature territory changed. still theory law gained foothold State.' page 230, 257. 7 find evidence Congress, enacting intended depart interpretation. context Act persuasively indicates scope provisions. As we observed, preserves (expulsion) proceedings, dealing latter. Within two chapters enumerated separate procedures expulsion, provisions removal transportation, and—most significantly—separate stays Section 243(h), claims relief, inserted among 4's 'Provisions Relating Entry Exclusion,' squarely 5—a strikingly inappropriate place if, claims, it apply aliens. simply device through needless confinement avoided conducted. affect status, hold placed inconsistent congressional mandate, parole, decisions Physical now exception, rule, employed security risks likely abscond. Annual Reports, 1955, pp. 5—6; 1956, 6. Certainly policy humane qualities enlightened civilization. acceptance position however, inherent suggestion altered prompt some curtailment current policy—an intention reluctant impute Congress. 10 Affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS, whom CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK BRENNAN concur, dissenting. provision controversy contained 214, 1253(h), reads: 13 authorized period time he deems necessary reason.' 14 present about sent Communist China—a Service told us inhospitable refugees.* 15 returned China. discretion 'subject persecution' country. 16 border. here authority Act—the may 'in discretion' 'into How can yet remains mystery. 17 Of course different considerations into play. There sought years used gain herself citizenship. Alternatively, argued statute run since 'entry.' 18 No enlargement prerogatives here. seeks residence, shelter designed protect refugees fate 'physical persecution.' requests considered beneficiary law. Only hostile reading deny respite. 19 I read narrowly make duty officials send others what death. Technicalities need enmesh us. spirit provides true guide. makes plain, think, where save human land. 243(h): 1253(h). 195—204, §§ 1221—1230, 1221—1230. 204—219, 1251—1260, 1251—1260. Analysis 716, 82d Cong., Counsel, 39—42. 212(d)(5): temporarily conditions prescribe emergent reasons deemed strictly public interest applying when shall, General, been served forthwith 188, 1182(d)(5), 1182(d)(5). announced October 31, headed back Red connection stated: 'Official notice taken mainland control de facto states, government operates totalitarian dictatorship, suppressing personal liberties imposing arbitrary restraints people maintain secure objectives. Its methods will include individuals groups way economic sanctions, corporal punishment, incarceration, execution. 'While accepted general proposition Peiping times engages these forms further authoritarian ends, reliable information available indicate directed indiscriminately against populace whole selective basis particular elements. known extent degree factors political beliefs religious views, themselves, noticed acted upon authorities. Another unknown factor prior bearing kind treatment accorded authorities Chinese national mainland, despite fact indicating strong continued efforts part persuade their overseas nationals re-establish themselves residence These specific practiced today matters await inquiry answer collation intelligence material gathered agencies government.' re Lee Sung, A—7921505.

Category: 1