United States v. Corsi
| Decision Date | 05 December 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 40.,40. |
| Citation | 61 F.2d 964 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES ex rel. LAMP v. CORSI, Com'r of Immigration. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
George Z. Medalie, U. S. Atty., of New York City (William Jay Hoff, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Harper & Matthews, of New York City (Harold Harper and Vincent P. Uihlein, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.
Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.
CHASE, Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
When the relator falsely represented himself to be an American citizen at the time he entered in April, 1930, he was not examined as an alien. On the contrary, he evaded such an examination when he succeeded in getting passed as a citizen. Compare Saadi v. Carr (C. C. A.) 26 F.(2d) 458. Every alien who comes into the United States must enter as an alien whether he has been here before or not. Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78, 34 S. Ct. 196, 58 L. Ed. 515. And every alien who departs from any place outside the United States destined for this country is an immigrant within the meaning of the Immigration Act unless he proves himself to be within one of the exceptions. Karnuth v. United States, 279 U. S. 231, 49 S. Ct. 274, 73 L. Ed. 677. The relator, therefore, when he entered by subterfuge in April, 1930, as an American citizen, being an alien immigrant, was at best then a nonquota immigrant by virtue of his previous lawful residence here. As an alien he was not entitled to admission unless he had either an unexpired immigration vise or a re-entry permit. 8 USCA § 213 (a, b): Regulations Jan. 1, 1930, Rule 3, F(1) and I(2); United States ex rel. Polymeris et al. v. Trudell (C. C. A.) 49 F.(2d) 730, affirmed 284 U. S. 279, 52 S. Ct. 143, 76 L. Ed. 291. Accordingly, he was unlawfully in the United States when he applied for the re-entry permit the following July, and was not entitled to the permit he obtained on the false statement that his last entry was in 1929. That this was a misrepresentation of a material fact is obvious, for it was in effect a representation that he had not entered in 1930 as an American citizen and not only the suppression of a fact that made his presence here unlawful, but a false answer to a direct question concerning it. It was not the concealment of irrelevant matter as in United States ex rel. Iorio v. Day (C. C. A.) 34 F.(2d) 920; nor in the face of this positive evidence of fraud can the prima facie validity of a re-entry permit see United States ex rel. Iodice v. Wixon (C. C. A.) 56 F.(2d) 824 be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zacharias v. McGrath
...825, certiorari denied 306 U.S. 631, 59 S.Ct. 464, 83 L.Ed. 1033 (1939). Rash v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 1935, 75 F.2d 934. U. S. ex rel. Lamp v. Corsi, 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 964. In view of the conflicting ruling expressed earlier by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Johnson v. Keati......
-
United States v. Miller
...ex rel. Leibowitz v. Schlotfeldt, 7 Cir., 1938, 94 F.2d 263; cf. Daskaloff v. Zurbrick, 6 Cir., 1939, 103 F.2d 579; U. S. ex rel. Lamp v. Corsi, 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 964. The Consul in the instant case would have been justified in refusing to issue the visa only if the suppressed facts wer......
-
United States v. Shaughnessy
...Smith, 1933, 289 U.S. 422, 53 S. Ct. 665, 77 L.Ed. 1298; Bendel v. Nagle, 9 Cir., 1927, 17 F.2d 719, 57 A.L.R. 1129; U. S. ex rel. Lamp v. Corsi, 2 Cir., 1932, 61 F.2d 964; U. S. ex rel. Siegel v. Reimer, D.C., 23 F.Supp. 643, affirmed U. S. ex rel. Fisk v. Reimer, 2 Cir., 1938, 97 F.2d The......
-
United States v. Schlotfeldt
...he disclosed them, would have been enough to justify the refusal of a visa or exclusion upon entry." The same court in U. S. ex rel. Lamp v. Corsi, 2 Cir., 61 F.2d 964, again distinguishes between fraudulent misrepresentation and that irrelevant to the right of admission. On page 965 of 61 ......