Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding case brief summary
344 U.S. 590 (1953)
CASE FACTS
The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision that dismissed petitioner's writ for habeas corpus. Petitioner was admitted to permanent residence after his marriage to a citizen. Petitioner was a seaman and left the United States aboard a ship. Upon his return, he was denied entry under 8 C.F.R. § 175.57(b), as an entrant whose admission could be denied in the public interest. Respondent maintained the order was based on confidential information, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest. Petitioner was denied a hearing, an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, had not been informed of the charges against him, and was ordered detained.
DISCUSSION
The Court reversed the judgment and held that petitioner, as a legal resident alien, was protected by the Fifth Amendment and could not be detained without being informed of the charges against him and given a hearing sufficient to satisfy due process requirements.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
344 U.S. 590 (1953)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner sought review of a judgment
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which
dismissed his petition for habeas corpus. Petitioner, a lawful
resident alien, had been detained pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 175.57(b),
when he returned to the United States following a sea voyage.CASE FACTS
The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision that dismissed petitioner's writ for habeas corpus. Petitioner was admitted to permanent residence after his marriage to a citizen. Petitioner was a seaman and left the United States aboard a ship. Upon his return, he was denied entry under 8 C.F.R. § 175.57(b), as an entrant whose admission could be denied in the public interest. Respondent maintained the order was based on confidential information, the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the public interest. Petitioner was denied a hearing, an opportunity to speak on his own behalf, had not been informed of the charges against him, and was ordered detained.
DISCUSSION
- The Court held that §175.57(b) did not authorize petitioner's detention because he was not an entrant but was a permanent resident.
- The Court held that petitioner was a permanent resident alien, and that status was not changed as a result of petitioner leaving the country on his sea duties.
- The Court held that as a permanent resident, petitioner was protected by the Fifth Amendment, and was entitled to notice of the charges against him and a hearing sufficient to meet due process requirements.
The Court reversed the judgment and held that petitioner, as a legal resident alien, was protected by the Fifth Amendment and could not be detained without being informed of the charges against him and given a hearing sufficient to satisfy due process requirements.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment