YU FUNG CHENG AND HI PAN CHAN, APPELLANTS IN NO. 73-1866
v.
DOMINICK RINALDI, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF NEW JERSEY, AND WILLIAM P. ROGERS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; YEUNG YAN CHEUNG, APPELLANT IN NO. 73-1867 V. DOMINICK RINALDI, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF NEW JERSEY, AND WILLIAM P. ROGERS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; KAN KAM LIN ET AL., APPELLANTS IN NO. 73-1868 V. DOMINICK RINALDI, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF NEW JERSEY, AND WILLIAM P. ROGERS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; LAM YI KAM, APPELLANT IN NO. 73-1869 V. DOMINICK RINALDI, AS DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE OF NEW JERSEY, AND WILLIAM P. ROGERS, AS SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees requires refugees seeking asylum to be lawfully present in the country.
Chinese seamen, denied asylum, sued the INS District Director seeking an injunction against deportation, alleging arbitrary denial. The district court…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse United Nations Protocol Relating To The Status Of Refugees cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants are Chinese seamen who, having requested and been denied asylum under the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Protocol), brought actions in the district court against Dominick Rinaldi, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from deporting them on the ground that his denial of asylum was arbitrary, capricious and illegal. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the director. The plaintiffs have appealed.
The Protocol went into effect in the United States on November 1, 1968. Article 32 of the Protocol provides in part that: “1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.” The district court concluded, and we agree, that the terms “lawfully in [the] territory” were intended to require that a refugee under the Protocol be in a country in compliance with the immigration laws of that country. Each of the appellants has had a deportation hearing at which he was found deporta-ble. No appeals were taken from the findings that each was unlawfully present.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons well stated in the opinion of Judge Lawrence A. Whipple, 361 F.Supp. 177 (D.N.J.1973). See also, Ming v. Marks, 367 F.Supp. 673 (S.D.N.Y.1973).
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cisternas-Estay v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 531 F.2d 155 (3d Cir. 1976)
-
Pierre v. United States, 547 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
Chim Ming v. Sol Marks, 505 F.2d 1170 (2d Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence