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

appealhabeas corpusparoleimmigration lawdeportationnaturalizationrespondentliensadmissibility
appealhabeas corpusparoleimmigration lawdeportationnaturalizationrespondentliensadmissibility

Related Cases

United States ex rel. Rongetti v. Neelly
View Case »
Guadalupe-Cruz v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Turkhan v. Perryman
View Case »
Riley v. Greene
View Case »
St. John v. McElroy
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Leng May Ma v. Barber

Facts

The alien was a native of China and had been found ineligible for entry into the United States. She was ordered excluded, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. She surrendered for deportation but applied for a stay pursuant to 243(h) of the INA, claiming that she would be subjected to physical persecution and probable death at the hands of the Chinese government. Her petition for writ of habeas corpus followed administrative notification of her ineligibility for relief. The contended that by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee she is 'within the United States,' she was covered by 243(h).

The alien was a native of China and had been found ineligible for entry into the United States. She was ordered excluded, and the Board of Immigration Appeals. She surrendered for deportation but applied for a stay pursuant to 243(h) of the INA, claiming that she would be subjected to physical persecution and probable death at the hands of the Chinese government. Her petition for writ of habeas corpus followed administrative notification of her ineligibility for relief. The contended that by virtue of her physical presence as a parolee she is 'within the United States,' she was covered by 243(h).

Issue

The question, therefore, is wholly one of statutory construction.

The question, therefore, is wholly one of statutory construction.

Rule

For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.

For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.

Analysis

The Court applied the rule by emphasizing that the alien's parole did not alter her status as an excluded alien or otherwise bring her 'within the United States' in the meaning of 243(h). The Court noted that the immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to the U.S. seeking admission and those who are within the U.S. after an entry, irrespective of its legality. The Court concluded that the granting of temporary parole does not change the legal status of an alien.

The Court applied the rule by emphasizing that the alien's parole did not alter her status as an excluded alien or otherwise bring her 'within the United States' in the meaning of 243(h). The Court noted that the immigration laws have long made a distinction between those aliens who have come to the U.S. seeking admission and those who are within the U.S. after an entry, irrespective of its legality. The Court concluded that the granting of temporary parole does not change the legal status of an alien.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment denying the alien's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The court affirmed the judgment denying the alien's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Who won?

The respondent, Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, prevailed because the Court found that the alien was not eligible for consideration under 243(h) as she was not legally 'within the United States.'

The respondent, Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, prevailed because the Court found that the alien was not eligible for consideration under 243(h) as she was not legally 'within the United States.'

You must be