Brownell v. Stjepan Bozo Carija, 13482.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 13482.,13482. |
| Citation | 254 F.2d 78 |
| Parties | Herbert BROWNELL, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Appellant, v. STJEPAN BOZO CARIJA, a/k/a Cariji, Nevenka Olga Kalajdic Carija, Tatjana Mira Carija, Igor Ivan Carija, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Harry T. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Robert T. Reynolds, Washington, D. C., filed a brief on behalf of appellees, and appellees' case was treated as submitted thereon.
Before PRETTYMAN, BAZELON and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
This was a civil action in the District Court for a declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs, husband and wife and their two children, all natives of Yugoslavia, entered the United States on July 30, 1946, on non-immigrant visas for travel to and through the United States. They were originally en route to Paraguay with passports issued by a consular officer of that country. The sixty-day period originally permitted to them for stay in the United States was extended to March 31, 1947. They have continued their stay here; they say, and the Government does not deny, that they have always been available to the authorities. In October, 1947, the Immigration and Naturalization Service instituted deportation proceedings. On June 25, 1948, the Displaced Persons Act was enacted.1 The plaintiffs immediately made applications for adjustment of their resident status under Section 4 of that Act. That section provided in effect that any alien who entered the United States prior to April 30, 1948 (extended to April 30, 1949, by act of June 16, 19502) and was on that date in the United States, and is otherwise admissible under the immigration laws, and is a displaced person, may apply to the Attorney General for an adjustment of his immigration status; that if the Attorney General determines the alien is qualified under the provisions of the Act he shall so report to Congress and the Congress may by concurrent resolution favor the granting of the status of permanent resident to such alien; and that the Attorney General is authorized to record the admission of the alien for permanent residence. The Attorney General denied an adjustment of status to these plaintiffs. In his answer to the complaint in the District Court he admitted that the denial was "solely upon a finding that their said entries into the United States were unlawful in that they possessed also an intention to remain permanently in the United States at the time of said entries."
Pretrial proceedings were had in the District Court. In their pretrial statement, which is in the record before us, plaintiffs alleged that at the time of their entries they had a desire, or purpose, or intent to remain permanently in the United States if permitted to do so lawfully, as well as a desire, or intent, or purpose to continue in transit across the United States to another country. In the pretrial statement plaintiffs also said that upon arrival here they received news that political conditions in Paraguay made it "unsuitable for family domicile." The brief in this court says these conditions "later erupted into a rebellion". The pretrial statement also said that for several months plaintiffs made numerous and diligent, although unsuccessful, efforts to obtain visas for entry into several North and South American countries. Upon oral motion the District Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. That action by the court subsumes that there were no genuine issues of material fact upon the record presented to the court. In its brief here the Government seems to admit that the intention of the plaintiffs was to remain in the United States "if permitted to do so lawfully". The Government argues to us: "The fact that appellees intended to remain permanently in the United States `if permitted to do so lawfully' (R. 2) does not change the complexion of their unlawful entry."
Plaintiffs did not, and do not, raise any point concerning the procedure accorded them. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appears to have been meticulous in its regard for fair and thorough hearings and other steps requisite to due process. The case comes to us upon a succinct question of law squarely in controversy between the parties. The question is whether the intent which these plaintiffs entertained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elkins v. Moreno
...404 U.S. 801, 92 S.Ct. 21, 30 L.Ed.2d 34 (1971). See also Matter of Barrios, 10 I. & N.Dec. 172 (BIA 1963); Brownell v. Carija, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 254 F.2d 78 (1957); Brownell v. Gutnayer, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 90, 212 F.2d 462 (1954). 25 See, e. g., Matter of Marchena, 12 I. & N.Dec. 355 (Reg......
-
U.S. v. Kavazanjian
...ostensible destinations distinguishes the present case from Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1960), and Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (D.C.Cir.1957). In each of those cases, the court characterized as non-fraudulent the conduct of an alien who visited the United States in ......
-
Hein v. Arkansas State University
...Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir.1960); Brownell v. Gutnayer, 212 F.2d 462 (D.C.Cir. 1954); Brownell v. Stjepan Bozo Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (D.C.Cir.1957). Still others arose in the context of tax refund proceedings. See, e.g., Nagaraja v. Commissioner of Revenue, 352 N.W.2d 373......
-
Choe v. I.N.S.
...to the authorities are false, or fraudulent or misrepresentative.' " Bong Youn Choy, 279 F.2d at 645 (quoting Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C.Cir.1957)). The BIA's finding that the INS carried its burden of proving preconceived intent contradicts that of the IJ. Under such circumst......
-
The International Business Client and Immigrant Visas
...Matter or Ibrahim, Interim Decision #2866 (1981). 97. See, Bon Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1960); Brownell v. Chartier, 254 F.2d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Matter of Chartier, 16 I&N Dec. 284 (1977); Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (1975). See also, U.S. State Dept. Cable r......
-
The International Business Client and Nonimmigrant Visas
...that the alien can demonstrate legitimate "dual intent." See Bon Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1960); Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Matter of Chartier, 16 I&N Dec. 284 (1977). See also, U.S. State Department cable reprinted in 56 Interpreter Releases 268 (M......