Vincent Sik-Hung Chan and Pauline Poon-Kar Chan v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Good Law
610 F.2d 651·1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9327
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 28, 197978-2375California2,030 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tang, J.

Vincent and Pauline Chan are husband and wife, natives of Hong Kong, and citizens of Great Britain. The Chans remained past the time authorized by their student visas, and after a hearing, were ordered deported. The Chans then applied for suspension of deportation, but this was denied.

The immigration judge concluded, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, that the Chans were ineligible for suspension of deportation because they had not established the seven years of continuous physical presence and the extreme hardship required by the statute. The Chans argue that their trips to Hong Kong during school vacations were not meaningfully interruptive of their ten-year presence in the United States, and that the loss of professional status, reputation and opportunity and the family hardship that they would suffer constitute more than merely economic hardship. We conclude that (1) the immigration judge’s determination that the Chans’ vacations broke the continuity of their ten-year stay in this country was based on an erroneous legal standard, and (2) the Board abused its discretion in not fully considering the personal and professional hardship to the Chans. We, therefore,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.