F-2055
Decided by Board June 29, 1948
Fine — Bringing an immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa — Exercise of due diligence by carrier before alien's embarkation — Section 16, Immigration Act of 1924.
The question of fact as to the exercise of due diligence by the carrier in bringing an immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa must be determined from all the factors in the case, when deciding that issue in fine proceedings brought under section 16, Immigration Act of 1924. (See 3 IN Dec. 111.)
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This is a fine proceeding instituted under section 16 of the Immigration Act of 1924 against Pan American Airways Inc. for bringing to the United States the above-named alien immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa. The Acting Commissioner, on March 22, 1948, ordered that a fine in the amount of $1,000 be imposed. The case is before us on appeal from the order of the Commissioner.
The subject alien, a native of Bermuda, subject of Great Britain, was lawfully admitted to the United States on October 12, 1922. On June 9, 1947, he departed to Bermuda, via Pan American Airways, and returned to New York on June 18, 1947 by Pan American Plane NC-88922. At that time, he was excluded by a Board of Special Inquiry as an immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa. On appeal from the decision of the Board of Special Inquiry, his admission to the United States was authorized as a returning resident under section 13 (b) of the Immigration Act of 1924, the Department of State having waived documentary requirements.
We agree with the conclusion of the Commissioner that the fine was properly imposed, and that the line could have ascertained by the exercise of due diligence prior to the aircraft's embarkation that the subject alien was an immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa.
In support of its claim to diligence, the line states that the subject alien deceived the line by falsely claiming United States citizenship when he purchased his ticket from the travel agent in New York. Upon his return from Bermuda, the subject represented to the Bermuda representatives that he was a naturalized citizen. It is also claimed by the company that there was nothing to place the representative of the line on notice that the alien might be perpetrating a fraud by passing as a United States citizen.
The instant case is distinguishable from the case of the S.S. Florida (file F-1484), approved by the Attorney General May 19, 1948. Therein it was held that the line exercised due diligence in accepting the alien passenger, and it was ordered that no fine be imposed. In the instant case the transportation agent in New York merely asked the man whether or not he was an alien and how he acquired citizenship. The subject said that he was a citizen by birth and nothing else was asked. At the time the subject was manifested to return, he stated that he was a citizen by naturalization. Although the agent in Bermuda may not have had the information given to the New York agent, it was information in the possession of the line, and the line cannot say that it was not available to any of its agents dealing with the problem. It is clear to the Board that a claim of citizenship one day by birth and a few days later by naturalization definitely requires investigation. Such a discrepancy raises a question in the mind of any normal person and does not show due diligence on the part of the agency.
In the Florida case we merely ruled that all that could be reasonably done had been done by the agency. In this record we do not find such is the case. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal from the order of the Commissioner imposing a fine in the amount of $1,000 be and the same is hereby dismissed.