A-7941618, A-7941619, and A-7941620
Decided by Central Office May 3, 1951
Subversive, adherent of principles directed toward destruction of free competitive enterprise, etc. — Act of June 25, 1948, as amended — "Voluntary" nature thereof — Evidence of ideological conviction.
While a governmental or public institution, in a totalitarian country (Russia in this case), must carry out the directives and serve the purposes of the Party and of the Government in power, any adherence to the political or economic system or philosophy of the Communist Party of Russia and of the Government of the Soviet Union on the part of a physician employed in a Russian medical dispensary run by that government and on the part of a graduate nurse employed in a Russian children's hospital run by that government was found to be involuntary under the circumstances evidenced in this case, and the aliens were not found to be inadmissible under the provisions of section 13 of the act of June 25, 1948 as amended.
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of June 25, as amended — Adhered to etc., the principles of any political or economic system directed to the destruction of free competitive enterprise, etc. (adult appellants).
Act of June 25, 1948, as amended — Not eligible displaced persons (adult female appellant and child appellant).
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: The record relates to a 38-year-old married male, native of Turkey and citizen of Russia, his 32-year-old wife and their 8-year-old son, natives and citizens of Russia who applied for admission into the United States for permanent residence at Munich, Germany, on October 9, 1950. They were held for examination before a board of special inquiry so that their admissibility into the United States under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, might be determined. At the conclusion of the hearing on January 3, 1951, they were held to be inadmissible on the grounds stated above and they have appealed from such decision.
The adult male appellant studied medicine in Russia from 1932 to 1937, then went to Iran and worked there as a physician until 1939. He returned to Russia in 1939 and was employed as a physician by an expedition in Turkistan. From 1940 to August 1941, he was employed in a medical dispensary in Klin, Russia, which dispensary was part of the Public Health Service of Russia. In August 1941 he was interned by the Russians because of the war between Russia and Iran, but was liberated by the Germans in August 1942. Thereafter he was employed as a physician, doing work for temporary municipalities in Russia. He claims that during the period of employment in Russia he was not required to join a trade union because of his former Iranian citizenship. He has further testified that he was never pro-Communist and that he considered himself to be an enemy of Russia. The female appellant testified that she attended a school for nursing in Moscow, and was employed as a graduate nurse from June 1940 to June 1941 in a children's hospital in Moscow. She further stated that she had never been a member of the Communist Party and that she had never belonged to any organization affiliated with the Communist Party.
The adult male appellant has testified that his employment as a physician in the medical dispensary was equivalent to employment by the Russian Government. We also regard the female appellant's employment as a nurse in the children's hospital in Moscow as employment by the Russian Government. Both of them testified that they were not pro-Communist and that they were never members of the Communist Party or any of its affiliates. The issue is whether adult appellants are inadmissible under the provisions of section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, in that by virtue of their employment by the Russian Government they adhered to, advocated, or followed the principles of a political or economic system or philosophy directed to the destruction of free competitive enterprise and a revolutionary overthrow of representative governments.
We recognize the fact that a governmental or public institution in a totalitarian country must carry out the directives, and serve the purposes, of the party and of the government in power. The adult appellants have testified that they did not have ideological conviction or belief in the doctrines of the party or of the government in power. According to the record, they were never intentionally active in the promotion of such doctrines, by word or act. After appropriate security clearances, there is no evidence or reliable information to the contrary. In the light of the foregoing, we find that any adherence to, advocacy or following of, the political or economic system or philosophy of the Communist Party of Russia and of the Government of the Soviet Union, on the part of adult appellants, was not voluntary, and therefore is not a basis for exclusion.
In addition, the adult female appellant and the child appellant have been found inadmissible under the act of June 25, 1948, as amended, because of the inadmissibility of the principal applicant. In view of our finding that the principal applicant is admissible, that ground for exclusion no longer exists.
Order: It is ordered that the appeals be sustained and the applicants be found admissible to the United States upon securing valid replacement visas.