Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting

66 F.2d 542, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2706, 1933 A.M.C. 1250
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided July 25, 1933·No. No. 479·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

L. HAND, Circuit Judge.

These appeals are from two judgments for the plaintiff in actions to recover for fines imposed by the Secretary of Labor under section 6 of the Quota Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 5, as added by 42 Stat. 540, for bringing to the port of New York aliens, excludable under the quota. All arrived before July 1, 1924, when section 16 of the Quota Act of, 1924 (8 [544] USCA § 216) first took effect. There were 119' aliens involved; 63 in suit No. 479, and 56 in suit No. 480. These may for purposes of convenience be divided into three classes; one, a single alien seeking to enter for business purposes; another, nine aliens claiming to enter as “professional nurses”; the third, 109 aliens, returning from temporary absences abroad. Having overruled Compagine Francaise v. Elting (C. C. A.) 19 F.(2d) 773, in Cosulieh Societa v. Elting, 66 F.(2d) 534, handed down herewith, we hold that a carrier has no absolute privilege of bringing in such aliens, and each ease must turn upon its merits. We may throw out at once eleven cases, in which the carrier made no protest against the fine; again, we have given our reasons for this in Royal Mail Steam Packet Co. v. Elting, 66 F.(2d) 516, handed down herewith. These are causes of action numbers 4, 51, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61 and 62 of action No. 479; and 42 and 50 of action No. 480. As to these the judgments are reversed for that reason.

The temporary visitor was an Italian seeking to come in to sell musical instruments. For all that the carrier could learn when he embarked, he was apparently being sent by a reputable seller to dispose of its wares in this country. He had documentary evidence from his employer, and we can find no basis for saying that the plaintiff failed in reasonable diligence. This is cause of action No. 7 of action No'. 480, as to which the judgment is affirmed.

The next class is of putative “professional nurses.” The second proviso of section 2 (d) of the Quota Act of 1921 (42 Stat. 6), which excepted them from the quota, is as follows: “Aliens returning from a temporary visit abroad, aliens who are professional actors, artists, lecturers, singers, nurses, ministers of any Religious denomination, professors for colleges or seminaries, aliens belonging to any recognized learned profession, or aliens employed as domestic servants.” This phrase was lifted from a proviso of section 3 of the Act of 1917 (8 USCA § 136), where it was an exception to the excluded class of contract laborers. Presumably it included here what it included there, and was designed to admit only those who would not compete with protected classes. We need not hold that professional nurses included only “trained” or “registered” nurses; we may arguendo assume that any one was within the class who could in fact get employment here as a nurse, even though in a minor capacity. Nevertheless, .the alien had at least to show that his qualifications were such as made it likely that he could earn his living as a nurse after he came in.' There may indeed be places in the United States where “trained” nurses are unknown, but it does not follow that any one can become a professional nurse even there. However varying the standard, the test must he practical; an alien who had got a smattering of knowledge, often gained in the stress of the war, would not qualify unless there was some reasonable chance that he could continue in the exempt classes, eo-uld make a livelihood in that way.

In cause of action No. 43 of action No. 480, the alien had a certificate of three months’ attendance in a nursing school; he had been in a doctor’s office, but, so far as appeared, for the most part washed instruments. He knew almost nothing of the duties of a nurse, and was unlikely to be able to get any work as such in this country. He did not qualify as a nurse of any sort. The two aliens in causes of action No.. 44 and 45 presented certificates from a school, but admitted on examination that they had never attended and they were imposters. Slight examination would have disclosed the truth.

The alien in cause of action No. 46 said that he had been a doctor’s nurse; he showed a certificate from a nursing school; he asserted that he meant to be a nurse here. ' However, he had only the rudiments of instruction in nursing, and whatever his intention, there was the smallest chance that he could practise nursing as a profession in this country. There was even less reason for accepting the alien in cause of action No. 47. His only service had been two years in a hospital; how long before his departure, did not appear.

The aliens in causes of action Nos. 48 and 49 were married women, one going to meet her husband, the other coming in with him. They had each had some experience in nursing, but it had been sporadic, and there can he no doubt that they were primarily to be housewives. We are not convinced that their true status could not have been learned by the carrier before it took them. The alien in cause of action No. 51 was a midwife who had a diploma of three years’ attendance in a school. She had married and was also coming in with her husband, who had been away from this country three years. We need not say that midwives are not “nurses,” for it was dt least doubtful that this alien would be a professional nurse of any kind in this [545] country. The judgment should be reversed as to Nos. 43, 44-, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 51 of action 480.

There remain the groat hulk of the cases, 100 in all, which relate to aliens returning from a temporary visit abroad. They had all been away for over six months, their absences varying from one to eight years. There was therefore a presumption that they had abandoned their domicile. Rule 3-, subd. 2 (a), of the Regulations under the Quota Act of 1921. The eases naturally present a great variety of circumstances. Thus an absence of three or four years naturally makes the claim of continued domicile less probable than when it was for loss than two. Yet a man might leave this country with the honest intention of eoming back soon, and be detained by his own sickness, or that of his wife, children, or parents, always meaning to return. In nearly every case the excuse given was this, and it is apparent that the authorities did not credit it. No doubt they had become sceptical from the very frequency with which it was used; and indeed it was an obvious way to explain what the aliens probably knew would he an objection to their admission. In some cases the story was corroborated by the certificate of a loeal doctor, but again that was easy to procure. It seems to us that the situation, certainly when the delay was of over a year, was such as exposed the carrier in all but the very plainest eases to the decision of the officials as to the credibility of the aliens’ excuses. We cannot say on the hare record that they must have been believed. Generally the evidence was very scanty; a few staccato questions, usually showing a disposition to doubt the truth of favourable answers; the alien ignorant, and at a disadvantage, wishing to get in, and probably ready to answer anything which he thought would effect his purpose. All this does not make a picture in which even justice stands out secure, but from the multitude it is impossible to single more than a very few, where we can say that there was no basis for exclusion. We are forced by the facts and the finality of the official action to accept the decision upon the issue of intent to retain a domicile.

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

Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting, 66 F.2d 542, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 2706, 1933 A.M.C. 1250 (2d Cir. 1933).

66 F.2d 542 (Transatlantica Italiana v. Elting) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

KANE
15 I. & N. Dec. 258 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1975)
United States v. Parisi
24 F. Supp. 414 (D. Maryland, 1938)
Navigazione Generale Italiana v. Elting
89 F.2d 31 (Second Circuit, 1937)
Hamburg-American Line v. Elting
74 F.2d 747 (Second Circuit, 1935)