A-6525215
Decided by Central Office January 23, 1948
Nonquota immigrant — Minister of religion — Section 4 (d), Immigration Act of 1924.
A Polish ordained rabbi who, for about 9 years preceding his application for admission, had not practiced his vocation of minister for reasons beyond his control and under the circumstances stated herein is not thereby disqualified from admission in a nonquota status under section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924. (See 1 IN Dec. 147, 149.)
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of 1924 — Not a nonquota immigrant as specified in immigration visa.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: The applicant, aged 49, male, native and citizen of Poland, arrived at Miami, Fla., on January 13, 1948, by Pan American Airways from Cuba and applied for admission to reside for a period of 2 years or indefinitely. He was excluded by a Board of Special Inquiry on the ground stated above, from which decision he appealed.
The appellant has presented an affidavit in lieu of a passport executed by the American Vice Consul at Santiago, Cuba, on January 6, 1948; also nonquota immigration visa No. 763 issued by the American Vice Consul at Santiago, Cuba, on January 6, 1948, pursuant to section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924, bearing a notation that the applicant claims to be a nonquota immigrant based on the following facts:
Bona fide professor, as defined by section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
The Board of Special Inquiry has found that the appellant is not entitled to a nonquota immigrant status and has, therefore, found him to be inadmissible on the visa he presents. The question considered is whether the appellant is entitled to a nonquota immigrant status within the meaning of section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
The appellant has testified that he is coming to the United States to teach and to study. He has presented an agreement executed by officers of Rabbinical Academy, Brooklyn, N.Y., disclosing that he has been employed there as a professor and instructor for a period of 2 years at a salary of $2,600 per annum. He has also presented a letter addressed to the American Consulate in Cuba by an officer of the above-mentioned institution informing of the position on the faculty of the school. There has also been made a part of the proceedings a letter over the signature of a Rabbi in Bronx, N.Y., under date of November 30, 1947, certifying that the appellant was a professor and instructor of Talmud at the Yeshiva College Remailles, in the city of Wilno, Poland, during the years 1930 to 1939, after which he was forced to leave his position due to the Nazi invasion. Such letter states that the appellant is known to be a great scholar having attended the foremost colleges of Talmudic study. Another letter, under date of November 30, 1947, over the signature of a Rabbi of Brooklyn, N.Y., giving similar information relative to the period the appellant was teaching in Poland from 1930 to 1939 and the reason he left the college where he was a professor, was also made a part of the proceedings.
The appellant has stated that he was a professor in Wilno, Poland, from 1930 to 1939, teaching the subject of religion; that because the Nazis came there and cut out all the business of teaching and learning he was unable to engage in his occupation as professor for the period from 1939 to 1942 and was supported during that period by the religious group.
According to his testimony he went to a concentration camp in Germany in 1942 where he remained until 1945. After he was freed from the concentration camp in 1945, he went to Italy where he remained in a camp paid for by Americans for displaced persons and remained about 14 months. Thereafter he went to Cuba and joined his brother where he remained 11 or 12 months immediately prior to coming to the United States on January 13, 1948. Since 1939, he has not engaged in his occupation as a professor or teacher and has not during such period engaged in any other work or occupation. He has $500 which was given to him by his brother in Cuba.
The foregoing facts establish that this appellant was a professor of a college in Poland from 1930 to 1939, engaged in teaching. For the period from 1939 until he came to Cuba about 1947, he did not engage in his occupation at any time for reasons beyond his control, having lived in Poland from 1939 to 1942, a conquered country, and from 1942 to about 1947 in a concentration camp and a camp for displaced persons. He has been in Cuba during the past 11 months and has stated that there was no work for him as a professor in Cuba.
This appellant was not dismissed nor did he voluntarily leave his position of professor in Poland. He was forced to leave that country and discontinue his occupation there. He has not taken up any other occupation or vocation. In a circular letter which expressed the joint views of the Department of State, Labor, and Justice in a similar case to the instant case, there is the following excerpt:
A person who would otherwise be eligible to qualify as a professor under this (1924) act shall not be deemed to have failed to carry on his vocation continuously in the 2 years preceding his application for admission if his dismissal or resignation from his chair of instruction was (1) caused by circumstances beyond his control, and (2) was accompanied by no intent to abandon his vocation, and (3) if he was not engaged in activities inconsistent with the theory that he was attempting continuously to carry on his vocation (C.L. 338, May 16, 1939).
In view of the foregoing facts and the contents of the circular letter last above mentioned, it is believed that the fact that this appellant has not actively engaged in his occupation during the 2-year period immediately prior to his application for an immigration visa, because of circumstances beyond his control, does not disqualify him from admission as a section 4 (d) nonquota immigrant in view of an adjudication of a similar case involving the same question herein involved. Matter of M----, 56088/530 (B.I.A. 1941). See also Matter of V---- W----, 56028/169 (Board of Review) 1940. See 1 IN Dec. 149, in which it does not appear that the alien had engaged in his avocation or occupation during the 2 years preceding his application for admission. It is concluded that this appellant is admissible as a nonquota immigrant pursuant to section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924. His appeal will be sustained.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the appeal be sustained and that the alien be admitted to the United States for permanent residence.