sovereign or a lesser political entity, so long as that authority reciprocated, see id. at 10, 52 S.Ct. 275. Similarly, in interpreting the terms “country” and “foreign country” as used in other statutory contexts, courts have not equated these terms with a sovereign when that definition' did not accord with legislative intent, but instead have construed the terms broadly to encompass regions without a sovereign as well as subsovereign authorities. See, e.g., Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 204-05, 113 S.Ct. 1178, 122 L.Ed.2d 548 (1993) (presuming that Congress had not intended to legislate extraterritorially and holding that the “foreign country” exception in the Federal Tort Claims Act applied to Antarctica); Lee Wei Fang v. Kennedy, 317 F.2d 180, 184-85 n. 5 (D.C.Cir.1963) (<HOLDING>); Chan Chuen v. Esperdy, 285 F.2d 353, 354 (2d
holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel holding that under permanent rules of hrira the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over claims of aliens ordered deported for crimes listed in ina and holding that district courts retain habeas jurisdiction over deportation orders of criminal aliens holding in light of congresss desire to reduce the number of undeportable aliens that hong kong a british crown colony is of course a country to which aliens may be deported pursuant to the immigration and nationality act holding that regulations that permitted an immigration official to reinstate removal orders violated the immigration and nationality act holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review