56088/530
Decided by the Board July 21, 1941.
Nonquota immigrant — Minister of religion — Section 4 (d), Immigration Act of 1924.
A Polish ordained rabbi who for some part of the 2 years preceding his application for admission had not practiced his vocation of minister did not thereby become ineligible to nonquota status under section 4 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1924 when it appeared that during that period he had been an involuntary exile from his country and rabbinate.
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of 1924 — Not a nonquota immigrant as specified in his incomplete immigration visa.
Messrs. Hershfield and Alpher, of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, for the appellant.
Mr. David Schwartz, Board attorney-examiner.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: The appellant arrived at Ellis Island from Morocco on July 5, 1941, and applied for admission for permanent residence as a section 4 (d) nonquota immigrant. The board of special inquiry rejected his claim to nonquota status and excluded him under section 13 (a) (3) of the 1924 act as not a nonquota immigrant as specified in his incomplete immigration visa. From this action he appeals.
DISCUSSION: The appellant is a 46-year-old native and citizen of Poland, a widower, and a rabbi by vocation. He has $250 and is destined to the dean of the Mesivtha Tifereth Jerusalem Rabbinical Seminary and Parochial High School in New York City to accept employment there as rabbi and instructor under a 2-year contract.
Appellant presents a Polish passport issued to him in Warsaw on July 26, 1939, which has been revalidated and is now valid until September 20, 1941. He is also in possession of a nonquota immigration visa issued under section 4 of the 1924 act, subdivision unspecified, at the American consulate general at Tangier, Morocco, on April 14, 1941, to expire August 14, 1941. In the application for this visa the claim to nonquota status is stated to be based on the fact that appellant has been a rabbi and is destined to a seminary in New York City to accept employment as a rabbi and an instructor. It is, therefore, apparent that it was intended that the visa be issued under subdivision (d) of section 4 of the 1924 act, and the visa will therefore be referred to the Department of State for validation by the insertion of this subdivision.
Appellant has been excluded as not being a nonquota immigrant as specified in his nonquota immigration visa for the reason that he has not actively followed the vocation of a rabbi in the 2 years preceding his application, as required by section 4 (d) of the 1924 act. This section provides:
When used in this act the term "nonquota immigrant" means —
* * * * * * *
(d) An immigrant who continuously for at least 2 years immediately preceding the time of his application for admission to the United States has been, and who seeks to enter the United States solely for the purpose of, carrying on the vocation of minister of any religious denomination, or professor of a college, academy, seminary, or university; and his wife, and his unmarried children under 18 years of age, if accompanying or following to join him. [Italics supplied.]
The facts of appellant's vocational history are as follows: He studied for the rabbinate from 1919 to 1922. From 1922 to 1924 he was occupied as a manufacturer of plated copperware, and from 1924 to 1939 he acted as a rabbi in his community in Poland. Subsequent to 1929 he served without compensation, having received an inheritance in that year which made him financially independent. That he was a rabbi in Poland is corroborated by certificates from rabbinical authorities in that country and by a representative of the Union of Orthodox Rabbis. This witness testifies that the union has information as to all the rabbis in Europe and that appellant was an ordained rabbi in Poland from 1923 to 1939.
In September of 1939, when the invasion of Poland began, the appellant had been in Vichy, France, for a month on his annual vacation for his health. Because of increasing war activities in France, he left for Lisbon in December 1939. He did no business in either France or Portugal, nor did he practice his vocation in those countries. He remained in Portugal until March 1940, and then, because he was not permitted to remain longer and could not return to Poland, he departed to Morocco, first making an unsuccessful attempt to go to England. He remained in Morocco from March 1940 until he took ship to the United States on June 5, 1941. During the year he was in Morocco he testifies that he acted as rabbi in a congregation there. This testimony is corroborated by a certificate from the Rabbinical Tribunal of Tangiers.
The evidence that led the board of special inquiry to the belief that appellant had not actively practiced his vocation for the first half of the required 2-year period preceding his application for admission is the following: When appellant applied for a Polish passport in July 1939 he stated that he was a manufacturer. At that time he also obtained Swiss and English visas, stating that he was traveling on business. He did not use these visas, nor was he able to use an English visa, which he obtained in Portugal in 1940 with a similar statement.
Certainly, the mere fact that for some part of the 2-year period an applicant for admission as a minister has not actively practiced his vocation does not disqualify him from admission as a section 4 (d) nonquota immigrant (cf. H---- Von W----, Board of Review, February 5, 1940 (56028/169) (professor)). The joint views of the Departments of State, Labor, and Justice in the closely analogous case of a professor are expressed in the following excerpt from Circular Letter 338 of May 16, 1939:
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 has not engaged in activities inconsistent with the theory that he was attempting continuously to carry on his vocation.
Appellant was not dismissed, nor did he voluntarily leave his position of rabbi in Poland. He was rather an involuntary exile from a country and rabbinate, which he testifies he did not relinquish on leaving. Nor can it be said that he has engaged in activities inconsistent with a continuous attempt to carry on his vocation. He has testified that he engaged in no business in France or Portugal and that in Tangier his only occupation was that of a rabbi. The only evidence showing an attempt to abandon his vocation consists of his statements, in obtaining his passport and Swiss and English visas in 1939 and an English visa in 1940, that he was traveling on business. As against this we have his testimony that it was his annual custom to take a vacation at Vichy; that he did no business in France and Portugal; and the fact that he did not use the Swiss and English visas. The war had not yet begun, and it seems that had he really had business in England or Switzerland he could have used the 1939 visas for those countries. As to the 1940 English visa, it seems clear that at that time he was a refugee. In any event the fact that he obtained such a visa is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that he intended to abandon his vocation as a rabbi. He, therefore, falls within the administrative views expressed above as to the maintenance of nonquota status, and he is apparently entitled to the section 4 (d) visa issued to him as a rabbi.
FINDINGS OF FACT: Upon the basis of all the evidence adduced at the hearing, it is found:
(1) That appellant is an alien, a native and citizen of Poland;
(2) That appellant is applying for admission for permanent residence;
(3) That appellant presents a Polish passport valid until September 20, 1941;
(4) That appellant presents a nonquota immigration visa issued to him under section 4, subdivision unspecified, of the Immigration Act of 1924 on April 14, 1941, to expire August 14, 1941;
(5) That appellant has been carrying on the vocation of a rabbi for the past year and is coming to accept employment as rabbi and instructor in a rabbinical seminary and parochial high school in New York City;
(6) That in the year preceding this last year, the appellant did not actively practice his vocation because he was an involuntary exile from his country and rabbinate and that during that time he did not acts inconsistent with the maintenance of his vocation and did not evidence an intent to abandon that vocation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded:
That under section 13 (a) (3) of the Immigration Act of 1924, the appellant is not inadmissible to the United States as not being a nonquota immigrant as specified in his nonquota immigration visa, provided that the Department of State validates his visa by the insertion of the appropriate subdivision of section 4 of said act.
OTHER FACTORS: In view of the circumstances of the case, the appellant will be paroled under a $500 delivery bond pending a reference to the State Department and final disposition.
ORDER: It is ordered that the visa herein be referred to the Department of State for insertion of the appropriate subdivision of section 4 of the Immigration Act of 1924, namely subdivision (d).
It is further ordered, That if the visa is validated, that the appeal be sustained and appellant admitted for permanent residence.
It is further ordered, That pending final disposition of the case the appellant be paroled under a $500 delivery bond.