Ho Yeh Sze v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
This text of 389 F.2d 978 (Ho Yeh Sze v. Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Petitioner Ho Yeh Sze seeks review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1105a of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which dismissed his appeal from an order of a Special Inquiry Officer. The Special Inquiry Officer had found that petitioner was deportable under Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1251(a)(2), as he was a non-immigrant crewman admitted on a temporary basis who had overstayed the authorized period. Petitioner does not dispute the finding that he is now illegally in the country. However, he does claim that the order to show cause which initiated the deportation proceedings in his case was fatally defective because it failed to set forth the name of the country to which the Government would request deportation and the specific subdivision of Section 243(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1253(a), pursuant to which the request would be made. We have examined petitioner’s contentions with some care and find them to be without merit. Our reasons follow.
*979 Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1252, sets out the procedure for dealing with the deportation of aliens. Subsection (b) provides:
A special inquiry officer shall conduct proceedings under this section to determine the deportability of any alien * * *. Proceedings before a special inquiry officer acting under the provisions of this section shall be in accordance with such regulations, not inconsistent with this chapter, as the Attorney General shall prescribe. Such regulations shall include requirements that—
(1) the alien shall be given notice, reasonable under all the circumstances, of the nature of the charges against him and of the time and place at which the proceedings will be held;
(2) the alien shall have the privilege of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel, authorized to practice in such proceedings, as he shall choose;
(3) the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against him, to present evidence in his own behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Government; and
(4) no decision of deportability shall be valid unless it is based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence.
Pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 242, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has promulgated regulations which provide that all deportation proceedings will be commenced by the issuance and service of an order to show cause. 8 C.F.R. Section 242.1. It is abundantly clear that the contents of the typical order to show cause, as prescribed by the Regulations, meet the standards of Section 242. 1 Petitioner has acknowledged that he received the customary order to show cause. However, he has contended that the order to show cause was deficient since it failed to specify that he might be deported to Hong Kong and did not indicate the basis on which such a request would be made.
Section 243 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 1253, specifies the countries to which an alien may be deported. 2 Thus, *980 initially an alien is permitted to designate the country to which he wishes to be deported. In the absence of such a designation, or if the chosen country refuses to accept the alien, or if the Attorney General finds that deportation to the particular country would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States, deportation may then be ordered to any country where the alien is a subject, national or a citizen. If the preceding country refuses to accept the alien or if the country fails to notify the Attorney General of its acceptance within three months or what the Attorney General deems to be a reasonable time, then deportation may be ordered to any country which satisfies the requirements of one of the subsections of Section 243. Thus in the instant case, at the deportation hearing, petitioner’s counsel informed the Inquiry Officer that petitioner did not wish to exercise his privilege of selecting a country for deportation. The officer thereupon proceeded to the second stage and asked counsel if there would be an objection under Section 243 (h), 8 U.S.C. Section 1253(h), 3 if petitioner was deported to his country of nationality, namely Formosa. After counsel responded that there would be no Section 243(h) application, the Special Inquiry Officer asked the Government whether it sought an alternative country as the place of deportation and the suggestion of Hong Kong followed. This request was premised on the fact that Hong Kong qualified under at least three subdivisions of 243(a). 4 At this juncture petitioner’s counsel interposed his objection relating to the alleged defect in the order to show cause. While the Special Inquiry Officer rejected this contention, he offered petitioner an adjournment in order to give him an opportunity to deal adequately with the question whether Hong Kong was a country which should be included in the *981 direction of deportation. This offer was rejected.
We fail to see any validity in petitioner’s argument and are in substantial agreement with the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeals. An order to show cause merely enables the immigration authorities to obtain direct jurisdiction over the person of the alien and it sets “in motion an inquiry which may follow broad lines, possibly eliminating the presently alleged ground for deportation and substituting another, and possibly eliminating all so that the alien’s residence here may remain undisturbed.” Haymes v. Landon, 115 F. Supp. 506, 508 (S.D.Cal.1953). In other words, the issuance and personal service of the order to show cause is the prescribed method of commencing the proceeding. There is no necessity at this early stage in the deportation process to specify the country to which an alien might be deported nor the grounds on which he may be deported to a particular country. In the first place, the alien may never actually be deported and in that case the question of the place of deportation becomes moot. Secondly, the alternative deportation provisions contained in Section 243(a) (1)-(7) only come into play if the alien has not been able to satisfactorily designate a country or if his country of nationality rejects him. Neither the specific provisions of the immigration statute nor the regulations issued thereunder, require, in the order to show cause, the designation of the country to which the Immigration Service proposes to deport an alien.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
389 F.2d 978, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 8188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ho-yeh-sze-v-immigration-and-naturalization-service-ca2-1968.