U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1958

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided May 7, 1958 · Washington, Danaher, Bastian

257 F.2d 606; 103 U.S. App. D.C. 228; 1958 U.S. App. LEXIS 4527 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Carl S. Stern, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, pro hac vice by special leave of court, New York City, with whom Mr. David Rein, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Harold D. Rhynedance, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 18 that cite it most often are listed here.

KANE (Board of Immigration Appeals 1975)
In re Petition for Naturalization of Kwong Hai Chew (District Court, S.D. New York 1967)
BECERRA-MIRANDA (Board of Immigration Appeals 2002)
Landon v. Plasencia (Supreme Court of the United States 1982)
Maria Antonieta Plasencia v. Joseph Sureck, District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (9th Cir. 1980)
MOORE (Board of Immigration Appeals 1971)
Beard v. Stahr (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
Edward Charles Wood v. Richard C. Hoy, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice (9th Cir. 1959)
Olvera v. Reno (District Court, S.D. Texas 1998)
Sabino v. Reno (District Court, S.D. Texas 1998)
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (District Court, District of Columbia 1992)
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (D.C. Cir. 1989)
Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (District Court, District of Columbia 1988)
NG (Board of Immigration Appeals 1980)
HEMBLEN (Board of Immigration Appeals 1974)
MINCHEFF (Board of Immigration Appeals 1971)
K (Board of Immigration Appeals 1961)
L-Y-Y (Board of Immigration Appeals 1960)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.