March 16, 1931
SUBHI MUSTAFA SADI
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and MACK, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge.
This appears to be a case of unusual hardship, but the statute above quoted explicitly forecloses any right of the appellant to be admitted to citizenship on his pending petition. We do not now undertake to determine whether or not he was entitled to entry for permanent residence at the time he was admitted at Boston. The fact remains that he was not so admitted, and, while that record stands, he cannot comply with the statute requiring his lawful entry for permanent residence to be established. See In re Wieg (D.C.) 30 F.2d 418.
It is urged that the order sustaining the writ of habeas corpus fixed his status as that of an alien admitted for permanent residence. To the extent that it had the effect of preventing his deportation upon the warrant which had then been issued, it did, of course, lend some color of permanence to his stay, in that he successfully withstood that attempt to deport him, but it did not change in any respect the terms and conditions of his original entry. It simply gave effect to the right he then possessed to remain in this country notwithstanding the order of deportation which had been issued. In respect to his ability to lay an essential foundation for his admission to citizenship, he stands in exactly the same situation he would have been had no warrant for his deportation been issued and no writ of habeas corpus sustained in his behalf. So far as the record shows, the writ was sustained on the ground that this appellant was quota exempt. Proof of residence that may, perhaps, become permanent because this alien was not deportable under a warrant that was issued and may not be deportable at any future time, dependent wholly upon what the future may bring forth, is certainly not the same as proof of his lawful entry for permanent residence. Of course, the order sustaining the writ of habeas corpus neither necessarily involved the determination that he had lawfully entered for permanent residence, nor does it appear that it was based on any such ground.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.