Legal Document

357 U.S. 193 78 Supreme Court Reporter 1076 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1252 William Pacific KF135 P2 ROGERS, Attorney General, Petitioner,v.Jimmie QUAN, also known as Quan Dung Ngoon, et al. Number 396. Argued May 20, 1958. Decided June 16, Mr. Leonard baron Sand, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. David Carliner, respondents. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 This is a companion case to Leng Ma versus Barber, 185, 1072. The five respondents are natives China who came seeking admission between 1949 and 1954, four them arriving before effective date Immigration Nationality Act. Like petitioner in Ma, all were paroled into States, have been ordered excluded. They applied stays deportation under § 243(h) Act,1 upon refusal, filed complaints District judgments declaring their nondeportability China, directing considerarion claims 243(h), restraining General from deporting them. dismissed by Court, but Appeals held that excluded aliens on parole 'within States' purposes 101 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 248 Federal Reporter, 2nd 89. Because conflict with Ninth Circuit's decision we granted certiorari. 1957, 355 861, 95, 67. We concluded respondents, like ineligible 243(h). However, because importance this problem administration immigration laws, deem it appropriate deal specifically contention not directly asserted Ma. Act authorized 237(a) Chapter 4, wherein provided an alien 'shall be immediately deported country whence he * *.' 66 Statutes-at-Large 201, 8 Code KF62 1227(a), Annotated KF65 U5 1227(a). A similar provision existed immediate predecessor 237(a), which was 18 1917.2 Deportation expulsion proceedings separately present 243 5, subsection (h) which, course, contains authority seek invoke case. 212, 1253, 1253. 243, 20 1917, 39 890, amended 23 Internal Security 1950, 64 1010. 3 Respondents assert, however, neither nor its predecessor, 1917 Act, basis since they 'immediately' required sections. Hence, argue must rest respondent arrived after prior 4 will assume, purpose analysis, are, claim, deportable only Acts virtue early arrival. exclusion sections, i.e., or confined, contend, those situations where immediate. Neither section, when read entirety context, fairly suggests any such limitation. Nor there reasons policy compel result. As desie remain increases, knocking our doors quite naturally become more litigious, contested departures often involve long delays. doubt Congress intended mere fact delay improve alien's status one legally considered within States. conclude ample deport respondents; need draw provisions 5 Regardless two sectons, 1952 provides respondents' deportation, applications subsequent hence determined For explained unavailable aliens, creates no variance principle. 6 Reversed. 7 CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK, DOUGLAS, BRENNAN dissent stated dissenting 190, 1075. Section 243(h): 'The withhold his would subject physical persencution period time deems necessary reason.' 214, 1253(h), 1253(h). 18: '(A)ll brought violation law shall sent back 887.

Classification Label: 1