United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.: No. 208, Docket 23374

221 F.
2d 262
UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Josip FERETIC, a/k/a

Joe
Feretic, Relator-Appellee,
v.
Edward J. SHAUGHNESSY, as District Director of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service for the
District of New York, etc., Respondent-Appellant.
No. 208, Docket 23374.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 7, 1955.
Decided April 4, 1955.
Albert Mayer, New York City, for relator-appellee.

J. Edward Lumbard, U.S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of N.Y., New York
City (Harold J. Raby, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, and Lester
Friedman, Atty., Immigration and Naturalization Service, New York City,
of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before MEDINA and HINCKS, Circuit Judges, and BURKE, District
Judge.
MEDINA, Circuit Judge.
A long series of administrative proceedings, which we need not describe in

detail, came to an end on May 18, 1954, when relator, a native of Yugoslavia,
exhausted his last administrative remedy and his deportation was ordered. The
validity of the proceedings leading to the order of deportation is raised in the
usual way by habeas corpus.
The question of deportability leads us back to an application by the relator in

1949 for adjustment of his immigration status under Section 4 of the Displaced
Persons Act of 1948 and another in February, 1954, for relief under Section 6
of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953. Each of these applications was denied, and
the issue now before us is narrowed down to one of statutory interpretation.

Section 4 of the Displaced Persons Act of 19481 provides:
3
'(b) When used in this section the term 'Displaced Person residing in the United
States' means a person who establishes that he lawfully entered the United
States as a nonimmigrant under section 3 or as a non-quota immigrant student
under subdivision (e) of Section 4 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, as
amended, and that he is a person displaced from the country of his birth, or
nationality, or of his last residence as a result of events subsequent to the outbreak of World War II; and that he cannot return to any of such countries
because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of race, religion or
political opinions. * * *'
Section 6 of the Refugee Relief Act of 19532 requires that the alien applicant
establish among other things, 'that prior to July 1, 1953, he lawfully entered the
United States as a bona fide nonimmigrant'.
The last entry of relator into the United States prior to the filing of his 1949
petition was on December 24, 1944, at the port of San Pedro, California, as a
member of the crew on the S.S. Calliroy, at which time he was admitted as a
nonimmigrant under the provisions of Section 3(5) of the Immigration Act of
1924.3 His papers were in order as a 'bona fide alien seaman' temporarily here
and with the intention of departing at or before the expiration of his leave on
the same or some other vessel. In reality, however, his own unequivocal
testimony compels a finding that when he left the ship he intended to stay here
permanently if he could. Under these circumstances, we have no doubt that his
entry was illegal. In effect he perpetrated a fraud upon the immigration
authorities when he induced them to let him off the ship on the basis of the
usual papers presented by bona fide alien seamen; and he was not 'a bona fide
nonimmigrant'. No amount of sympathy for an alien who wishes to disassociate
himself from a communistic regime in the country of his birth can furnish
justification or excuse for disregarding the plain mandate of the statute.
While our decision in Sleddens v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1949, 177 F.2d 363, had
to do with an alien visitor here on business who had overstayed his leave, the
principle involved is identical with that controlling here, as Sleddens also had
testified that it was his intention to remain in America permanently, if possible.
What evidently misled the court below was certain phraseology in United
States v. Prince Line, 2 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 386, 389, 'that what the alien says
and the documents he submits to the examining immigrant inspector, rather
than his subjective intent or concealed motive for wishing shore leave, are
determinative of his status as a non-immigrant.' But the issue there was simply
whether or not the steamship company was required to pay the expenses of
deportation, under Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917, which has since
been superseded by Section 243(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1952, 8 U.S.C.A. 1253(c), providing that transportation companies shall be
liable for the cost of deporting alien seamen without reference to the ground of
deportation. The opinion as a whole makes it clear that the court hesitated to
adopt a rule, in cases where alternative grounds of deportation were concededly
available, which might unfairly burden shipowners by making their liability
depend upon the subjective intent of the seaman. In any event, the Prince Line
case is not applicable here.
7
Accordingly, we reverse the order appealed from and direct the dismissal of the
writ.
62 Stat. 1011, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1953
67 Stat. 403, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1971d
Now 8 U.S.C.A. 1101(a)(15)(D)

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.: No. 208, Docket 23374

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.: No. 208, Docket 23374

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.: No. 208, Docket 23374

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

221 F.

UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Josip FERETIC, a/k/a

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Albert Mayer, New York City, for relator-appellee.

A long series of administrative proceedings, which we need not describe in

The question of deportability leads us back to an application by the relator in

the issue now before us is narrowed down to one of statutory interpretation.

62 Stat. 1011, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1953

67 Stat. 403, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1971d

Now 8 U.S.C.A. 1101(a)(15)(D)

You might also like