Popa v. Zurbrick
| Decision Date | 08 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 5691.,5691. |
| Citation | 45 F.2d 583 |
| Parties | POPA v. ZURBRICK, District Director of Immigration. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Paul B. Mayrand, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
S. J. Carey, of Detroit, Mich. (John R. Watkins and Stephen J. Carey, both of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before DENISON, MOORMAN, and HICKS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, a subject of Roumania, was admitted to the United States, February 26, 1927, as an alien student entering for the sole purpose of study. 8 USCA § 204(e). In November of 1928 he was arrested on a warrant which charged (1) that he had entered by means of false and misleading statements, thereby entering without inspection; and (2) that he was a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his entry. At the hearing thereon before an inspector of the Department of Labor, the further charge was made that he had not maintained his student status. In October of 1929 the Board of Review found that the evidence sustained all the charges, and recommended deportation upon the ground that the entry was obtained by false and misleading statements. On November 13, 1929, a warrant of deportation was issued based upon that ground, and thereupon appellant filed this habeas corpus proceeding, which was dismissed by the court below.
The Bureau of Immigration's record in the case has been filed in this court. That record, with the printed record, shows a finding by the Secretary of Labor that the passport visé was procured by false and fraudulent representations. This finding appears in the warrant itself, and, if true, justifies the order of deportation. United States v. Day (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 485. The statements which were found to be false appear in an affidavit which appellant filed with his application for the visé. This affidavit stated that appellant was seeking to enter as a nonquota student only, that it was his purpose to study for the ministry at Broadway College, La Grange, Ill., and that he expected to return to his own country and practice his profession at the expiration of three years. The proofs show that appellant went to La Grange, Ill., shortly after his entry, but did not enter the school because, as he claimed, he had no money and could not get work, and, further, that since that time he has worked regularly and has accumulated more than $1,000 in cash, but has made no attempt to enter any accredited school. He stated at the hearing that some one,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...the visa obtained by appellee was under a name and identity long before established. Appellant also relies upon the cases of Popa v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 45 F.2d 583; U. S. ex rel. Thomas v. Day, 2 Cir., 29 F. 2d 485, and Heizaburo Hirose v. Berkshire, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 86. In each of these case......
-
Daskaloff v. Zurbrick, 7850.
...visa, and that the visa was thereby procured, appears in the warrant itself, and if true, justifies the order of deportation. Popa v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 45 F.2d 583. Appellant's claim is that she misunderstood the questions which she answered on making application for her immigration visa be......
-
United States v. Reimer
...So it has always been held when the question has arisen. United States ex rel. Thomas v. Day, 2 Cir., 29 F.2d 485; Popa v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 45 F.2d 583; Heizaburo Hirose v. Berkshire, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 86. The recital in the warrant was therefore correct; the alien had not entered without in......
-
United States v. Reimer
...States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 96 F.2d 217; United States ex rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt, 7 Cir., 94 F.2d 263; Popa v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 45 F.2d 583; United States ex rel. Iorio v. Day, 2 Cir., 34 F.2d 920. The object of requiring visas, or at least one of the most important objec......