Fassilis v. Esperdy

• Decision Date: 12 March 1962
• Docket Number: Dockets 26956-26958.,No. 66-68,66-68
• Citation: 301 F.2d 429
• Parties: Demetrios FASSILIS, Gerardo Castaldo and Orlando Fevola, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. P. A. ESPERDY, District Director of the New York District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

301 F.2d 429 (1962)

Demetrios FASSILIS, Gerardo Castaldo and Orlando Fevola, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. P. A. ESPERDY, District Director of the New York District of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 66-68, Dockets 26956-26958.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued November 9, 1961.

Decided March 12, 1962.

Fried & Mailman, New York City (Elmer Fried, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. (Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel), for defendant-appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MEDINA and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

WATERMAN, Circuit Judge.

The three plaintiffs, Fassilis, Castaldo, and Fevola, who entered the United States as crewmen, bring this consolidated appeal from orders entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that granted motions for summary judgment made in each of their cases by the defendant District Director of Immigration.¹

Appellant Fassilis last entered this country about January 29, 1960, with permission as a member of the crew of an arriving vessel to remain here for twenty-nine days and to depart on a ship different from the one on which he arrived. On February 3, 1960, he married an American citizen. Twelve days later he filed an application with the Immigration Service under the Immigration and Nationality Act, § 245(a), 72 Stat. 699 (1958), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255(a), for adjustment of his immigration status to that of a legal permanent resident of the United States. From the evidence in support of the application for adjustment it appeared to the District Director of Immigration that Fassilis knew before he came to this country that if he married an American citizen he might not have to return to his native country, Greece; that he never intended to reship; that he did not intend to continue as a crewman after his marriage; and that he commenced employment ashore within a month after his arrival in this country. The appellee denied Fassilis' application on June 2, 1960, on the ground that the applicant was not a bona fide non-immigrant alien crewman and therefore under section 245(a) could not apply for an adjustment to the status of a permanent resident,² and on the further ground that even if Fassilis were a bona fide non-immigrant he did not deserve favorable treatment, a determination which under section 245(a) was within the discretion of the Immigration Service to grant or withhold. On August 23, 1960, the Regional Commissioner of Immigration, stating that the application was denied as a matter of discretion, affirmed the decision of the District Director. He made no reference to an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that became effective on July 14, 1960. Until July 14, 1960, section 245(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act had provided in pertinent part:

"The status of an alien who was admitted to the United States as a bona fide nonimmigrant may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence * * *."

On that date, after the District Director's rejection of Fassilis' application and prior to the affirmance of the rejection by the Regional Commissioner, the statute was amended as follows:

"The status of an alien, other than an alien crewman, who was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States may be adjusted by the Attorney General, in his discretion and under such regulations as he may prescribe, to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence * * *." (Emphasis added.) 74 Stat. 505 (1960).

Appellant Castaldo entered this country as a crewman on January 14, 1956. On July 25, 1958, he married an Italian national who subsequently became a naturalized American citizen. Castaldo filed an application for adjustment of status on May 27, 1960. The evidence before the District Director indicated that this 1956 entry was Castaldo's first entry into this country as a crewman; that he left his ship within hours after its docking in Virginia and went to New York City; that he never inquired about his vessel's future sailing particulars or need for his services; that he never tried to reship; that almost immediately after he arrived here he planned to stay here; and that he accepted unauthorized employment ashore shortly afterwards. The appellee denied Castaldo's application for legal permanent resident status on July 1, 1960, for the same reasons that he denied Fassilis' application. On September 29, 1960, the Regional Commissioner affirmed the appellee's decision without referring to the amendment of July 14, 1960.

Appellant Fevola entered this country as a crewman and here married an American citizen some time prior to July 14, 1960. He filed his application for adjustment of his status to that of a legal permanent resident on May 26, 1960. The evidence presented in his case tended to show that Fevola had deserted his ship within a day after its arrival, that he had taken employment ashore, and that he had neither registered as an alien nor registered under the Selective Service Act. On July 13, 1960, one day before the amendment quoted above, the District Director denied Fevola's application for the same reasons as those advanced in the cases of Fassilis and Castaldo. On September 13, 1960, the Regional Commissioner affirmed the District Director, without referring to the July 14 amendment.

The three men brought actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, § 10, 60 Stat. 243 (1946), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, § 279, 66 Stat. 230 (1952), 8 U. S.C.A. § 1329, for review of these administrative decisions. In each case the District Director of Immigration moved for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A. In an opinion reported at 192 F. Supp. 84 (S.D.N.Y.1961), the district judge granted the defendant's motion against Fassilis on two theories — first, that there was no abuse by the administrative officials of the discretion given by the statute, and, second, that the July 14, 1960 amendment to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act that became law while the administrative appeal was pending precluded crewmen after that date from obtaining permanent resident status under that section. The district judge also granted summary judgment in the cases of the other two seamen, incorporating therein by reference his opinion in the Fassilis case. The three crewmen now join in this single appeal from these adverse decisions below.

We affirm the district court, for the rule announced in Ziffrin Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 63 S.Ct. 465, 87 L.Ed. 621 (1943), defeats the contentions of these appellants. The Ziffrin case involved an application to the Interstate Commerce Commission for a permit to continue certain contract carrier operations. Between the date of the initial hearing on the carrier's application and the date on which the Commission entered its final order of denial, the Interstate Commerce Commission Act § 210, 49 Stat. 554 (1935), was amended by the Transportation Act of 1940, § 21(a), 54 Stat. 923, 49 U.S.C.A. § 310, in such a way that, if the amendment were applicable to Ziffrin's application, the application had to be denied. The Supreme Court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission was required to follow the amendment, and, therefore, the Commission had properly rejected the application. The Court stated:

"It is unnecessary, however, to decide whether the Commission correctly applied Section 210 as originally enacted to such common control as the Commission found in appellant and Ziffrin Truck Lines, Inc. We are convinced that the Commission was required to act under the law as it existed when its order of May 29, 1941, was entered. The permit was effective for the future and the amendment forbade persons under common control holding both a permit and a certificate. Previously appellant had been operating under an ex parte permit. Protests to the grant had been made on account of the dual operation, the formal hearing was held and the question raised by these protests was heard at length. A change in the law between a nisi prius and an appellate decision requires the appellate court to apply the changed law. Vandenbark v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 311 U.S. 538, 61 S.Ct. 347, 85 L.Ed. 327, and cases cited. Cf. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 464, 41 S.Ct. 172, 175, 65 L.Ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196. A fortiori, a change of law pending an administrative hearing must be followed in relation to permits for future acts. Otherwise the administrative body would issue orders contrary to the existing legislation." 318 U.S. 73, 78, 63 S.Ct. 465, 469.

In the present case there was a similar statutory change between the filing of the appellants' applications and the ultimate administrative decision disposing of these applications. And just as each application of each of these three crewmen seeks a change from a present status to a different future one, the application by Ziffrin was for permission to operate in the future as a particular kind of carrier. Therefore, we hold that the July 14, 1960 amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act was applicable to the appellants' applications, and the results reached by the Immigration Service were valid. Cf. McLarty v. Borough of Ramsey, 270 F. 2d 232 (3 Cir. 1959).

In reaching this result we point out that the July 14, 1960 amendment is not being applied retroactively. While the appellants' applications were still subject to administrative adjudication, the appellants had no established right to the future status that they were seeking to obtain by their applications. This was especially so since the statute here involved made the...