CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


ROGERS V. QUAN, 357 U. S. 193 (1958)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 357 U. S. 193 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Rogers v. Quan, 357 U.S. 193 (1958)

Rogers v. Quan

No. 396

Argued May 20, 1958

Decided June 16, 1958

357 U.S. 193

Syllabus

Respondents, natives of China, came to the United States between 1949 and 1954, seeking admission. All were paroled in the United States but have been ordered excluded. They applied for stays of deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, on the ground that their deportation to China would subject them.to physical persecution at the hands of the existing government. The stays were denied, and they sued for judgments declaring their nondeportability to China, directing consideration of their claims under §243(h), and restraining the Attorney General from deporting them.

Held:

1. Their release on parole did not alter their status as excluded aliens; they were not "within the United States," within the meaning of § 243(h); and thus they were not eligible for the benefits of that section. Len May Ma v. Barber, ante, p. 357 U. S. 185. P. 357 U. S. 194.

2. Deportation authority under the two exclusion sections, § 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and § 18 of the Immigration Act of 1917, is not confined to situations where deportation is immediate. Pp. 357 U. S. 194-196.

3. Regardless of which of the two exclusion sections, § 237(a) of the 1952 Act or § 18 of the 1917 Act, provides the basis for respondents' deportation, their applications for stays were all filed subsequent to the 1952 Act, and must be determined by that Act. P. 357 U. S. 196.

101 U.S.App.D.C. 229, 248 F.2d 89, reversed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 357 U. S. 194





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED