Due Process Rights of Lawful Permanent Residents Facing Exclusion
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590 (1953).
Substance of the Case
The central issue in this case was whether a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, detained and ordered excluded after returning from a voyage abroad, was entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, the case examined whether such an LPR could be denied a hearing if the Attorney General claimed the exclusion was based on confidential information deemed prejudicial to the public interest.
Facts
- Kwong Hai Chew, a Chinese national and LPR, lived in the U.S. with his American wife. He had served honorably in the U.S. Merchant Marine during World War II.
- In 1950, Chew worked as a seaman on an American-registered ship. While returning to the U.S. from a five-month voyage to foreign ports, he was detained on board by the Immigration Service.
- The Attorney General ordered his exclusion, citing confidential information that allegedly made his entry prejudicial to the public interest. Chew was denied notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.
- Chew filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his detention violated his constitutional rights.
Analysis
Constitutional Right to Due Process:
- The Supreme Court ruled that as an LPR continuously residing in the U.S., Chew’s constitutional right to due process did not cease because of his temporary voyage abroad.
- The Court reasoned that an LPR should be treated as if they were continuously residing within U.S. borders for the purposes of due process.
Regulatory Interpretation:
- The Court interpreted the regulation (8 CFR § 175.57(b)) governing “temporary exclusion” as not applicable to individuals like Chew, who were LPRs and had strong ties to the U.S.
- The Court distinguished Chew’s case from prior rulings concerning first-time entrants, emphasizing that LPRs returning from temporary trips abroad cannot be excluded without due process protections.
Distinction from Previous Cases:
- The Court differentiated this case from Knauff v. Shaughnessy, where exclusion without a hearing was upheld for an entrant alien.
- Unlike an entrant, Chew was an established resident with recognized constitutional protections.
Conclusion/Outcome
The Supreme Court held that Chew’s detention without notice of charges or an opportunity to respond violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and remanded the case. This decision established that lawful permanent residents returning from brief trips abroad are entitled to procedural due process, including notice and a hearing, before any exclusion or deportation actions are taken.
Key Takeaway for Readers with Limited Knowledge
If you are a lawful permanent resident of the United States, your constitutional rights don’t disappear when you travel abroad briefly. This case ensures that before the government excludes you or takes actions affecting your residency, it must give you notice of the charges and a fair opportunity to defend yourself.
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
