# Memorandum — Yuen Sang Low v. Attorney General of the United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_0977%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Memorandum
- **Published:** January 1, 1973
- **Citation:** 414 U.S. 1039

## Text

“) ‘SUPREME COURT, U. Ss. .
‘ 4 ey fT Ww sole. 4
‘

“n the ajrens dit of the Hated Beat

OCTOBER TERM, 1973, 4

yy

YUEN SANG Low, ET AL., PETITIONERS
Vv.

RosBert H. BorK, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

CN PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

RosBerT H. Bork,
Solicitor General,
Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. 20530.

3u the Supreme Court of the Auited States

Octoser Term, 1973

No. 73-395
YUEN SANG Low, ET AL., PETITIONERS
; v.

Rosert H. Bork, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION

Each petitioner is a native and citizen of China who
sought entry into the United States in 1951 or 1952
claiming to be the son of an American citizen. Each was
denied admission, following a finding that he had not
established citizenship, and each was ordered exluded.
However, while proceedings were pending, each peti-
tioner was paroled into the United States pursuant to
Section 212 (d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)).

Thereafter, petitioners submitted applications for sus-
pension of deportation and adjustment of status to
that of a permanent resident alien under the provisions

(1)

2

of Section 244(a) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1254(a)).' The
District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service rejected the applications on the ground that
excluded aliens were ineligible for the relief afforded by
that section. Petitioners sought review of that adminis-
trative decision in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The district court
granted petitioners’ motion for summary judgment,
finding that they had been physically present in this
country for the prescribed period and were thus eligible
for relief under Section 244(a) (Pet. App. A).

On May 30, 1973, the court of appeals reversed in a
comprehensive opinion (Pet. App. B). The petition for
certiorari was not filed until August 30, 1973, more than
ninety days after the decision of the court below, and
no extension of time for petitioning was obtained. The
petition is therefore jurisdictionally out of time under
28 U.S.C. 2101(c) and accordingly should be denied.
Teague, et al. v. Regional Commissioner of Customs,
Region Il, et al., 394 U.S. 977; Scofield v. National
Labor Relations Board, 394 U.S. 423, 427.

Respectfully submitted.

ROBERT H. Bork,
Solicitor General.

OCTOBER 1973.

'Section 244(a) provides in pertinent part:

***([T)}he Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend
deportation and adjust the status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, in the case of an alien who
applies to the Attorney General for suspension of deportation
and—

(1) is deportable under any law of the United States * * *
has been physically present in the United States for a con-
tinuous period of not less than seven years immediately
preceding the date of such application * * *.

Deon ier tio

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385607_0977%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.