Di v. Carroll
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
842 F. Supp. 858 (1994)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Guo Chun Di (defendant) entered the United States from the Peoples Republic of China in June 1993. Guo fled China inside a shipping vessel, and when the vessel ran aground in the New York City harbor, Guo swam to shore. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) District Director William J. Carroll (plaintiff) initiated deportation proceedings after transferring Guo to a detention facility in Virginia. After applying for political asylum, Guo testified that he fled his home village for a distant city after officials ordered him and his wife to undergo involuntary sterilization. Guo testified that while in the city, relatives in his village told him government officials had searched and destroyed part of his house. Although crediting Guo’s account, the immigration judge (IJ) found Guo was ineligible for asylum under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The IJ found that, under Matter of Chang, government persecution as part of a policy of coercive population control does not constitute persecution on account of political opinion. Guo appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), arguing that certain federal regulations invalidated Matter of Chang. The BIA affirmed the IJ decision, finding Matter of Chang was controlling precedent because the regulations cited by Guo had no force or effect. Guo appealed to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, reasserting his arguments about Matter of Chang.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.