News & Insights

Facts:

• A woman from China arrived in the U.S. claiming citizenship but was detained while authorities reviewed her claim.
• She was later released on parole while her status was determined.
• Her claim to citizenship was denied, and she was ordered excluded from the U.S.
• Fearing persecution and potential death if deported to Communist China, she sought to invoke a specific provision of immigration law (§ 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) that allows the Attorney General to withhold deportation if the person is within the U.S. and faces physical persecution in their home country.

Key Legal Question:

Does being on “parole” in the U.S. count as being “within the United States” under the law, granting eligibility to request protection from deportation?

Analysis:

• The Court highlighted the distinction in immigration law between individuals seeking entry into the U.S. and those who have entered, even if unlawfully.
• Parole was characterized as a temporary allowance to be physically present in the U.S. without granting legal entry or changing an individual’s status as an “excluded alien.”
• Legislative language explicitly stated that parole “shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien.”
• Past court decisions supported the interpretation that parolees are legally still outside U.S. borders for immigration purposes.

The Court reasoned that the woman’s physical presence on parole did not make her “within the United States” as required by the statute for her to qualify for protection from deportation. The distinction between being physically present and legally “entered” was maintained.

Outcome:

The Court’s decision established that parole does not grant an individual legal entry into the U.S., limiting the protections and benefits they can seek under immigration law.