Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealhearingmotiondeportationnaturalizationliens
attorneyappealhearingmotiondeportationnaturalizationliens

Related Cases

Etuk v. Blackman
View Case »
Shah v. Mukasey
View Case »
Hakopian v. Mukasey
View Case »
Zhu v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Churches v. Thornburgh
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lau v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Petitioners are three Chinese crewmen who deserted their ships in American ports and have been residing as unauthorized aliens in this country since 1967. Following evidentiary hearings in 1968, deportation orders were issued against petitioners by a Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Over six years ago, these deportation orders were upheld by this court. On November 1, 1971, petitioners moved the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen their deportation proceedings to enable them to apply for permission to depart voluntarily from the United States in lieu of being deported.

Petitioners are three Chinese crewmen who deserted their ships in American ports and have been residing as unauthorized aliens in this country since 1967. Following evidentiary hearings in 1968, deportation orders were issued against petitioners by a Special Inquiry Officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Over six years ago, these deportation orders were upheld by this court. On November 1, 1971, petitioners moved the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen their deportation proceedings to enable them to apply for permission to depart voluntarily from the United States in lieu of being deported.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals was properly constituted during the decision-making process and whether petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to apply for voluntary departure.

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals was properly constituted during the decision-making process and whether petitioners were denied a fair opportunity to apply for voluntary departure.

Rule

The Attorney General may permit any alien under deportation proceedings to depart voluntarily from the United States at his own expense if such alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is a person of good moral character for at least five years immediately preceding his application for voluntary departure. Applications for voluntary departure must be made during the deportation hearing and cannot be reopened unless new circumstances have arisen.

The Attorney General may, in his discretion, permit any alien under deportation proceedings, [with exceptions not relevant here], to depart voluntarily from the United States at his own expense in lieu of deportation if such alien shall establish to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is, and has been, a person of good moral character for at least five years immediately preceding his application for voluntary departure under this subsection.

Analysis

The court found that the petitioners did not apply for voluntary departure at the deportation hearings and had no valid reason for their failure to do so. The court distinguished the case from Simmons v. United States, stating that petitioners were not compelled to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another. The court concluded that the Board's decision was based on the lack of new circumstances that would warrant reopening the proceedings.

The court found that the petitioners did not apply for voluntary departure at the deportation hearings and had no valid reason for their failure to do so. The court distinguished the case from Simmons v. United States, stating that petitioners were not compelled to surrender one constitutional right in order to assert another. The court concluded that the Board's decision was based on the lack of new circumstances that would warrant reopening the proceedings.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of petitioners' motions to reopen deportation proceedings.

The court affirmed the denial of petitioners' motions to reopen deportation proceedings.

Who won?

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed because the court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate valid reasons for not applying for voluntary departure during their original hearings.

The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service prevailed because the court found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate valid reasons for not applying for voluntary departure during their original hearings.

You must be