F-5174
Decided by Central Office August 3, 1949
Fines — Failure to deport alien seaman after written notification to do so — Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 — When such "deportation" effected.
1. Where an alien seaman is ordered deported and the vessel takes him to a foreign place and he is actually landed, he is deemed "deported" even though he returns here on the same vessel, so that a fine under section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 has not been incurred "for failure to deport" such seaman.
2. The same conclusion follows even though such alien seaman is not shown to have actually landed in a foreign place, where it appears he could have done so, but elected to remain on board the vessel, instead of going ashore.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: This is a fine proceedings instituted under section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 against the Lavino Shipping Co., agents for the S.S. Evgenia Chandris, for failure to deport the alien seamen P---- M---- and D---- P---- after being notified in writing to do so.
The S.S. Evgenia Chandris arrived at the port of Philadelphia, Pa., on February 22, 1949, from Koilthottam, India. An order to detain on board at all United States ports and deport M---- and P---- was served on the agents on February 22, 1949. The vessel sailed foreign via Norfolk, Va., on March 2, 1949, having the two detainees on board. On April 29, 1949, the vessel again arrived at the port of Philadelphia via Algeria; Bone, Algeria, and Gibralter, the two seamen still being on board. Notice of liability for fine was served on the agents on May 2, 1949. Counsel have filed protest to the imposition of fine. They contend that there was a full compliance with the order to detain and deport, of February 22, 1949, when the vessel sailed and touched at the foreign ports of Algiers, Bone, and Gibralter; that the position that there has been a violation of the immigration laws by reason of the fact that the seamen were physically on the vessel upon arrival at a United States port after a voyage to a foreign port, is contrary to the previous long established practice of the Service; and that the purpose of the statute, which is to prevent those who are not entitled to enter from landing and remaining in this country, has been fully accomplished as the detained seamen were never landed in this country and are not in this country having been detained on board the vessel and deported in accordance with orders.
The record does not show whether the alien seamen involved in this case actually landed in a foreign port. However, there is no reason to suppose that they could not have gone ashore in Algeria since that is the country in which they signed on. Even assuming that they did not land, it does not appear that a fine would lie.
We recently dealt with a somewhat similar situation in the Matter of the S.S. Caterina Gerolimich, F-4544, July 18, 1949. In our decision in that case we stated:
P---- (the alien involved) was taken to a foreign place and actually landed. He was thus deported and merely because he returned on the same vessel would hardly be a basis for imposing liability. As a matter of fact, if he had been paid off, it is clear that he could have returned as a seaman on another vessel. He might again have been denied shore leave, but no liability would have attached to the vessel bringing him to this country. The same result would seem to obtain if he had been paid off the S.S. Caterina Gerolimich and then been reemployed prior to its return. Merely because he continued his employment on that vessel would not, it appears, be a sufficiently pertinent feature to distinguish it from the other situations. It is therefore found that by returning P---- to Italy, the master complied with the order to deport him within the meaning of section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924. Accordingly, a violation of that section has not occurred.
It does not appear that there would have been a different holding in the Caterina Gerolimich case if P---- had elected to remain aboard the vessel, instead of going ashore. That is, he would have been considered just as effectively deported, since the fact that he did or did not go ashore would have been an insufficiently distinguishing fact.
The situation in the instant case being similar, it is found that the alien seamen were deported within the meaning of section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924 and a violation of that section has not been established.
Recommendation: It is recommended that fine not be imposed, the amount involved is $2,000.
So ordered.