TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Chak v. Murff

CHONG CHAK v. John L. MURFF, as District Director for the New York District, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice

Chak v. Murff, 172 F. Supp. 150 (S.D.N.Y. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
April 17, 1958
Judges
Dimock
Citations
172 F. Supp. 1501958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2285

Opinion of the Court — Dimock

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

Plaintiffs move for a stay of deportation pending prosecution of their action (a) for review of administrative denials of applications under Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (h), for stays on the ground that they would be subject to physical persecution in the country to which it is proposed to deport them, (b) for a declaratory judgment and (c) for a permanent injunction.

The substance of plaintiffs’ complaint is that it is proposed to deport them to Hong Kong and that they are not assured that they will not be deported by the British authorities to Communist China where they will be persecuted.

The applicable statute is Section 243 (a) (7) of the Immigration and Nation *151 ality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1253 (a) (7), which, in such a case' as this, provides for deportation “to any country which is willing to accept such alien into its territory”. The British visa officer in this port has advised the Immigration and Naturalization Service that the documents held by plaintiffs are valid for entry into Hong Kong.

The statute does not require a guarantee from the accepting country that it will never deport the alien. While there is thus no requirement of anything more than acceptance, it is noteworthy that there is no indication that plaintiffs, under the papers in their possession, will be anything less than permanent residents of Hong Kong or that their deportation thence to Communist China is likely.

The motion is denied and the temporary stay vacated.

So ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1959: 11961: 11962: 119592026peak 1959 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Murff264 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1959)
  2. Hom Sin v. Esperdy209 F. Supp. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)
  3. Teo Chai Tiam v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States293 F.2d 543 (D.C. Cir. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Hom Sin v. Esperdy209 F. Supp. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1962)
  2. Teo Chai Tiam v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney General of the United States293 F.2d 543 (D.C. Cir. 1961)
  3. United States v. Murff264 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1959)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list