North German Lloyd v. Elting

Second Circuit

North German Lloyd v. Elting

54 F.2d 997, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2972

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 11, 1932

DocketNo. 129

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 54 F.2d 997 (North German Lloyd v. Elting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

North German Lloyd v. Elting, 54 F.2d 997, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2972 (2d Cir. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

CHASE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

This alien was brought to the United States in accordance with section 2 (a) (4) of the above-mentioned statute (42 Stat. 5), which provides that the quota shall not apply to “aliens visiting the United States as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure.” It is not claimed that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in bringing the alien here. We agree that it had no right to rely upon the visa to establish his claimed status as a quota exempt. United States ex rel. Spinosa v. Curran (D. C.) 4 F.(2d) 613, affirmed 4 F.(2d) 614 (C. C. A. 2). But the plaintiff at least had probable cause to believe that the alien belonged to one of the classes to which the quota did not apply. If his claim was well founded, he was admissible, and the only way that could be finally determined was by the alien coming to some port of entry to the United States to present his evidence of his right to enter to the officials competent to pass upon it. The statute does not forbid bringing such an alien here so that he can satisfy the proper authorities, if possible, that he has the right to enter. Compagnie Franeaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Elting (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 773. The admissibility of this alien did not depend upon any exercise of discretion by the Secretary of Labor as it did in Dollar S. S. Co. v. Hyde, 23 F.(2d) 910 (C. C. A. 9), where the fine was nevertheless held to have been unlawfully imposed; or in North German Lloyd v. Elting, 48 F.(2d) 547 (C. C. A. 2), where the imposition of fines was held lawful. Funk was not in an-excluded class or admissible only in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, but was a nonquota alien if his evidence was credible and of due [998]*998weight, and so entitled to be heard by the proper officials and to have all his evidence in support of his claim to entry as of right duly considered by them in fixing his status. A transportation company acting in good faith is not liable to a fine for bringing him here for such a purpose. What was said in Compagnie Franeaise, etc., v. Elting, supra, on this subject applies with equal force to this case, for his right to enter was absolute if he came here temporarily on business.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHASE, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

This alien was brought to the United States in accordance with section 2 (a) (4) of the above-mentioned statute (42 Stat. 5), which provides that the quota shall not apply to “aliens visiting the United States as tourists or temporarily for business or pleasure.” It is not claimed that the plaintiff acted in bad faith in bringing the alien here. We agree that it had no right to rely upon the visa to establish his claimed status as a quota exempt. United States ex rel. Spinosa v. Curran (D. C.) 4 F.(2d) 613, affirmed 4 F.(2d) 614 (C. C. A. 2). But the plaintiff at least had probable cause to believe that the alien belonged to one of the classes to which the quota did not apply. If his claim was well founded, he was admissible, and the only way that could be finally determined was by the alien coming to some port of entry to the United States to present his evidence of his right to enter to the officials competent to pass upon it. The statute does not forbid bringing such an alien here so that he can satisfy the proper authorities, if possible, that he has the right to enter. Compagnie Franeaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Elting (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 773. The admissibility of this alien did not depend upon any exercise of discretion by the Secretary of Labor as it did in Dollar S. S. Co. v. Hyde, 23 F.(2d) 910 (C. C. A. 9), where the fine was nevertheless held to have been unlawfully imposed; or in North German Lloyd v. Elting, 48 F.(2d) 547 (C. C. A. 2), where the imposition of fines was held lawful. Funk was not in an-excluded class or admissible only in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor, but was a nonquota alien if his evidence was credible and of due [998]*998weight, and so entitled to be heard by the proper officials and to have all his evidence in support of his claim to entry as of right duly considered by them in fixing his status. A transportation company acting in good faith is not liable to a fine for bringing him here for such a purpose. What was said in Compagnie Franeaise, etc., v. Elting, supra, on this subject applies with equal force to this case, for his right to enter was absolute if he came here temporarily on business.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 F.2d 997, 1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-german-lloyd-v-elting-ca2-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack