Lee Fook Chuey, Also Known as Huey Gock Yut and Jimmie Huey v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Petitioner seeks review of a final decision of the Attorney General entered against him in a proceeding under 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a) (2). The jurisdiction of this Court rests on § 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act [Act], 8 U.S.C. § 1105a.

The petitioner is a native and citizen of China. On February 4, 1952, the petitioner (who was then 15 years old) entered the United States at Hawaii and was admitted as a United States citizen because of his knowingly false claim that he derived citizenship from his father. In September of 1957, petitioner voluntarily confessed before an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (hereinafter “I. & N.S.”) that he was not a citizen of the United States. Because of petitioner Lee’s entry into the United States without inspection, he was ordered deported pursuant to § 241(a) (2) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a) (2).

No steps were taken to deport petitioner under this order, however. In 1965, he married a citizen of the United States and they subsequently had one child, who is a United States citizen by birth. Petitioner then moved to reopen the deportation proceedings for consideration of an application for suspension of…

(dissenting).

I vote to grant the government’s petition for rehearing, and the petition to hear en banc.

ORDER

A majority of the panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc, Judge Carter dissenting.

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing and of the panel vote, and a majority of the judges of the court has voted to deny a rehearing en banc (Fed.R.App.P. 35(b)); Judges Carter and Wright voting for a rehearing and a hearing en banc.

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected, in accordance with the “Order on Petition for Rehearing” filed herein this date.

JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge, dissenting from Order Denying Petition for Rehearing and Hearing In Banc.

I originally concurred in the well written opinion prepared by my brother Barnes, in the above case. Thereafter, the Attorney General filed a strong and convincing petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in banc. That petition convinced me and several of my colleagues, the case should be heard in banc.

The panel has now issued an order…

439 F.2d 244 LEE FOOK CHUEY, also known as Huey Gock Yut and Jimmie Huey, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. No. 24376. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Sept. 29, 1970, rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 11, 1971, Dissenting Opinion Feb. 22, 1971. Fallon, Hargreaves & Bixbey, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. James L. Browning, U.S. Atty., Stephen M. Suffin, Atty., I. & N.S., San Francisco, Cal., John N. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., for respondent. Before BARNES, HAMLEY and CARTER, Circuit Judges. BARNES, Circuit Judge: 1 Petitioner seeks review of a final decision of the Attorney General entered against him in a proceeding under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2). The jurisdiction of this Court rests on 106 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1105a. 2 The petitioner is a native and citizen of China. On February 4, 1952, the petitioner (who was then 15 years old) entered the United States at Hawaii and was admitted as a United States citizen because of his knowingly false claim that he derived citizenship from his father. In September of 1957, petitioner voluntarily confessed before an officer…