In the case of Kimm v. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1959, the U.S Supreme Court addressed an issue concerning immigration law. The petitioner was a Korean national who had entered the United States as a non-immigrant student but later sought to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident under Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. However, his application was denied by immigration authorities on grounds that he failed to maintain his student status due to insufficient academic progress. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed this decision stating that it is within administrative discretion whether or not "extenuating circumstances" can excuse failure in maintaining non-immigrant status for adjustment purposes under Section 245(a). The Supreme Court declined review thereby upholding lower court's ruling which essentially meant that immigrants seeking adjustment must strictly adhere to terms of their original admission into US unless they can demonstrate extenuating circumstances justifying any deviation from those terms.

In the dissenting opinion for Kimm v. Rosenberg, it was argued that the majority's decision to deport Mr. Kimm based on his past membership in a communist organization was unjust and contrary to American principles of fairness and due process. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Kimm had been unfairly targeted because of his political beliefs, rather than any actual threat he posed to national security or public safety. They pointed out that there was no evidence suggesting Mr. Kimm had engaged in illegal activities or advocated for violent overthrow of the government - which were supposed to be prerequisites for deportation under immigration law at the time - nor did he have any ongoing affiliation with communism when proceedings began against him years later after becoming a naturalized citizen.