264 F.2d 52 - Wong Hing Goon v. Brownell — 264 F.2d 52

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 1986

3 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *53Bernard C. Brennan, George S. Lee, William E. Cornell, Newton, Cornell & Irvin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

¶2Laughlin E. Waters, U. S. Atty., James R. Dooley, Richard A. Lavine, Asst. U. S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

¶3Before STEPHENS, BARNES and HAMLEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

¶5Appellant is a Chinese citizen who arrived in the United States for the first time in 1952 to prosecute his claim of blood relationship to a United States citizen. This claim was denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and its decision was upheld on appeal.

¶6Thereafter, appellant filed an application under Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act alleging that he would be subject to physical persecution if deported to China. A hearing on the application was denied on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Appellant then commenced this action in the District Court seeking an order for declaratory relief and ordering appellees to grant the hearing requested. The District Court granted a summary judgment for appellees.

¶7This case involves the interpretation of Section 243(h) which authorizes the Attorney General to withhold the deportation of any alien within the United States if the alien would be subject to physical persecution.1 **The question is whether appellant, an alien, was “within the United States” as that phrase is used in Section 243(h).

¶8Both parties agreed that the facts in the present case were indistinguishable from those in Leng May Ma v. Barber, 9 Cir., 241 F.2d 85, which was then awaiting review by the United States Supreme Court.2 In Leng May Ma we held that an alien seeking admission to the United States and physically present here was not within the United States in the meaning of Section 243(h). This decision was upheld on review by the United States Supreme Court, Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 78 S.Ct. 1072, 2 L.Ed.2d 1246. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court denying relief to appellant was proper and is affirmed.