55846/215
Decided by the Board December 13, 1943.
Admission of crime — Perjury.
The oath required by section 10 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 regulating the issuance of reentry permits may be taken before a State notarial officer. When an alien knowingly makes a material false statement in an application for a reentry permit, the application having been sworn to before a State notarial officer; held, that he has committed perjury.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1917 — Admits commission of crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry — perjury.
Mr. Max Wilfand, Board attorney-examiner.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: After a hearing the presiding inspector found the respondent deportable on the warrant charge and recommended his deportation. The Central Office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service concurs in this recommendation.
DISCUSSION: The respondent is a 46-year-old native and citizen of Yugoslavia who last entered the United States at Detroit, Mich., on March 14, 1943, at which time he was admitted as a returning resident in possession of a resident alien's border-crossing card. He first entered this country in 1915 and remained here until his return to Yugoslavia in 1919. He reentered the United States at Tampa, Fla., in February 1924 as a seaman and resided here illegally until 1930. On December 27, 1929, the respondent applied for a reentry permit in the name of one F---- D---- L----. He is not now certain whether he was sworn to tell the truth at the time he executed this application, but the application itself reveals that it was executed under oath before a notary public, and we so conclude. The respondent falsely stated therein that he last entered the United States at the port of New York on October 4, 1915, under the name of F---- D---- L---- as a passenger on the S.S. Vaslios Constantinos. The facts stated by the respondent on this application related to a third person who was a stranger to the respondent. This information had been supplied by a friend who was also acquainted with this third person. After the application was made, the Immigration and Naturalization Service found a record of the arrival of one P---- D---- at the port of New York on October 5, 1915, as a passenger on the S.S. Vasilefs Constantinos, which was found to relate to the person whose identity the respondent had assumed and on the basis of which record a reentry permit was issued the respondent on January 17, 1930. The respondent was thereafter admitted to the United States on November 3, 1930, as a returning resident in possession of this reentry permit.
The respondent readily admitted that he falsely stated in the application for a reentry permit that he last entered the United States on October 4, 1915. His voluntary admission of the commission of the crime of perjury before the notary public at Detroit, Mich., on December 27, 1929, then followed. This crime manifestly involves moral turpitude, but the admission of its commission carries no weight unless a law has been violated that forbade the acts done by the respondent. Section 231, title 18, U.S.C. (sec. 125 of the Criminal Code) defines perjury as follows:
Whoever, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, shall willfully and contrary to such oath state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be fined not more than $2,000 and imprisoned not more than five years.
The oath taken by the respondent at the time he executed the application for a reentry permit was required by section 10 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 which provides:
Any alien about to depart temporarily from the United States may make application to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization for a permit to reenter the United States, stating the length of his intended absence, and the reasons therefor. Such application shall be made under oath, and shall be in such form and contain such information as may be by regulations prescribed and shall be accompanied by two copies of the applicant's photograph.
To sustain a perjury charge, it must also be shown that the oath was administered by a competent tribunal, officer, or person. The oath taken by the respondent in this case was administered by a notary public, presumably duly appointed and authorized by the State of Michigan to administer oaths. Though section 10 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924 does not provide who may administer the oath required therein, the regulations then in existence (Immigration Laws and Regulations of March 1, 1927) provided in paragraph 1, subdivision F, rule 24, that when an application for a reentry permit is executed in the United States, the oath may be administered by any officer duly authorized to administer oaths. It should also be noted that section 92a, title 5, United States Code provides that notary publics duly appointed in any State, may administer oaths when under the laws of the United States oaths are authorized or required. We therefore conclude that the respondent swore falsely to a material fact before a competent officer where a law of the United States authorized an oath to be administered. Perjury was committed by this respondent and his admission of its commission prior to entry subjects him to deportation.
In July 1933 deportation proceedings were commenced against the respondent and on July 28, 1933, he was accorded a hearing. He was then under oath, and during the hearing he knowingly falsely stated that after arrival in the United States in 1915 he remained here until 1930. He admits that he then committed the crime of perjury. He is therefore deportable because of this admission.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the basis of all the evidence presented, it is found:
(1) That the respondent is an alien, a native and citizen of Yugoslavia;
(2) That the respondent last entered the United States at Detroit, Mich., on March 14, 1943;
(3) That the respondent admits the commission of the crime of perjury on December 27, 1929, and July 28, 1933.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded:
(1) That under section 19 of the Act of February 5, 1917, the respondent is subject to deportation on the ground that he admits having committed a felony or other crime or misdemeanor prior to entry into the United States, to wit: perjury on December 27, 1929, and July 28, 1933;
(2) That under section 20 of the Act of February 5, 1917, the respondent is deportable to Yugoslavia at Government expense.
OTHER FACTORS: After the deportation hearing given the respondent in 1933, he went back to Yugoslavia and remained in that country for 4½ years. He returned here in 1938 and was legally admitted as a quota immigrant on May 23, 1938. He has resided here continuously since that time. In Yugoslavia he has an alien wife and three alien children. He has one daughter who lives in Canada. Prior to the oubreak of the war he supported his family in Yugoslavia. At the present time he is employed by the Ford Motor Co. at $60 weekly and has savings of $3,000. Apparently he has never been in trouble with the police.
The respondent has not had an unrelinquished domicile of 7 continuous years in the United States. Though he is deserving of consideration under the seventh proviso of section 3 of the Act of February 5, 1917, he is not eligible for this relief because the necessary jurisdictional residence requirement has not been met. There is no discretionary relief that we can grant him on the present record. Accordingly, an order of deportation will be entered.
ORDER: It is ordered that the alien be deported to Yugoslavia at Government expense on the charge contained in the warrant of arrest.