Due Process Protections for Lawful Permanent Residents Facing Exclusion
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953).
Introduction:
This case examined whether a lawful permanent resident of the United States could be excluded without notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court held that lawful permanent residents, even those temporarily absent from the country, are entitled to due process protections under the Fifth Amendment.
Facts of the Case
- Kwong Hai Chew, a Chinese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1945, lived in New York with his American wife. He had served in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II and held a clean record. In 1950, Chew took a job as a seaman on an American ship that traveled to foreign ports. Upon his return in 1951, he was detained by immigration authorities, who deemed his re-entry “prejudicial to the public interest.”
- Citing confidential information, the Attorney General ordered Chew’s “permanent exclusion” without providing him notice of the charges or an opportunity for a hearing. Chew challenged his detention as a violation of due process.
Court’s Analysis:
Constitutional Due Process
The Court emphasized that lawful permanent residents have constitutional protections under the Fifth Amendment. It ruled that such individuals cannot be deprived of their liberty without due process, which includes notice of charges and an opportunity to respond.
Resident Status and Exclusion
- The government argued that Chew, by temporarily leaving U.S. territory, assumed the status of an alien seeking entry and thus could be treated as “excludable.”
- The Court rejected this argument, distinguishing between exclusion (applied to new entrants) and expulsion (applied to current residents).
- Chew’s brief absence did not strip him of his rights as a lawful resident.
Regulatory Interpretation
- The Court found that the regulation relied on by the Attorney General (8 CFR § 175.57(b)) was not intended to deny hearings to lawful permanent residents.
- The term “excludable” in the regulation applied only to new entrants, not residents returning from temporary trips abroad.
Outcome:
- The Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings, holding that Chew’s detention without a hearing violated his due process rights.
- The case was remanded, affirming that lawful permanent residents are entitled to fundamental procedural protections, even when returning from brief absences abroad.
Conclusion:
This decision underscored that lawful permanent residents, by virtue of their established ties to the United States, are entitled to due process protections under the Constitution. The ruling ensures that governmental actions impacting such individuals’ liberty or residence must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and justice.
Let’s Get Started
Your legal challenges deserve personalized attention and innovative solutions. Contact Oware Justice Advocates PC today for a consultation and take the first step toward resolution and peace of mind.
355 South Teller Street, Suite 204,
Lakewood, CO 80226
(Visits to the office are strictly by appointment only)
303-514-6589
