Cheng Fu Sheng v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

Background

A group of people who criticized Taiwan’s government sought protection from deportation under § 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which lets the Attorney General withhold deportation for anyone who would face “persecution on account of . . . political opinion.” The opinion notes one named example, Lei Chen, who after a one-day military trial was sentenced to ten years for trying to form a non-Communist party. The petitioners had publicly denounced the Chiang Kai-shek regime as a “police state.”

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Court should review the petition about withholding deportation for people claiming political persecution in Taiwan. The Court declined to hear the case. In a dissent, Justice Douglas argued the Court should grant review and put the case down for argument, stressing well-documented intolerance in Taiwan and the severe penalties critics face.

Real world impact

Because the Court refused review, the petitioners do not get a Supreme Court hearing now and remain subject to the existing lower-court outcome and potential deportation. Justice Douglas warned that returnees who criticize the regime face harsh punishment, including execution or long imprisonment. The ruling here is a procedural denial, not a final decision on the underlying asylum or withholding claim, and it leaves the practical risks described by the dissent in place.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas’s dissent provides the clearest account of why review should be granted: he describes secret military trials, broad pressure to conform, low return rates of students, and a history of severe punishment for political dissent.