Kwong Hai Chew v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States

257 F.2d 606, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4527
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 7, 1958
Docket17-1246
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 257 F.2d 606 (Kwong Hai Chew v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kwong Hai Chew v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States, 257 F.2d 606, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4527 (D.C. Cir. 1958).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on for consideration on the transcript of the record and was argued by counsel.

Upon consideration whereof, the court has concluded: (1) that the law of this case is that if Chew is to be deprived of his status — a status described in Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 at page 596, 73 S.Ct. 472, at page 477, 97 L.Ed. 576, as “assimilate[d] * * * to that of an alien continuously residing and physically present in the United States” — the Immigration and Naturalization Service may do so only in proceedings in which the Service is the moving party, and bears the burden of proof; (2) that the proceedings here under review were conducted under a different theory than that just stated, to the prejudice of the appellant; and (3) that it is not necessary at this time for this court to express an opinion with respect to the other contentions of the parties in this case.

Now, therefore, it is Ordered by the court that the judgment of the District Court appealed from herein be, and it is hereby, vacated and that this case be, and it is hereby, remanded to the District Court with directions to remand the case to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for reopening of the deportation proceedings and for reconsideration and further findings in the light of the foregoing and of Rowoldt v. Perfetto, 1957, 355 U.S. 115, 78 S.Ct. 180, 2 L.Ed.2d 140.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

BECERRA-MIRANDA
23 I. & N. Dec. 462 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2002)
Olvera v. Reno
20 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (S.D. Texas, 1998)
Sabino v. Reno
8 F. Supp. 2d 622 (S.D. Texas, 1998)
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
795 F. Supp. 13 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
880 F.2d 506 (D.C. Circuit, 1989)
Landon v. Plasencia
459 U.S. 21 (Supreme Court, 1982)
NG
17 I. & N. Dec. 536 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1980)
KANE
15 I. & N. Dec. 258 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1975)
HEMBLEN
14 I. & N. Dec. 739 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1974)
MOORE
13 I. & N. Dec. 711 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1971)
MINCHEFF
13 I. & N. Dec. 715 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1971)
In re Petition for Naturalization of Kwong Hai Chew
278 F. Supp. 44 (S.D. New York, 1967)
Beard v. Stahr
370 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1962)
K
9 I. & N. Dec. 143 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1961)
L-Y-Y
Board of Immigration Appeals, 1960

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
257 F.2d 606, 103 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kwong-hai-chew-v-william-p-rogers-attorney-general-of-the-united-states-cadc-1958.