News & Insights

Legal Issue Addressed:

Whether an alien entering the United States as a temporary visitor can be lawfully excluded when evidence fails to establish intent to remain permanently.

Facts and Circumstances:

In 1924, a Greek woman arrived at Ellis Island, New York, carrying a passport and visa issued in Italy. She was accompanied by her husband, a lawful resident of Philadelphia who had married her shortly before their travel. Her visa stated she was visiting the United States for pleasure. Upon arrival, immigration authorities questioned her intent, citing inconsistencies in her testimony about staying with her husband and her stated plans to return to Greece.

A Board of Special Inquiry voted to exclude her by a majority, doubting her claim as a temporary visitor. Despite her husband’s willingness to post a bond ensuring her departure within six months, the Board’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Secretary of Labor. The woman filed a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by a District Court that found her hearing fair and supported by some evidence.

Court’s Decision and Reasoning:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the habeas corpus petition. It found no evidence to support the exclusion order and determined that the Board acted arbitrarily.
The court noted:

• Immigration law at the time allowed temporary visitors to enter the U.S. for up to six months.
• General Order No. 30 permitted immigration officers to require a bond as a condition of entry for temporary visitors if intent was unclear.
• The woman’s statements reflected a natural desire to stay with her husband but did not establish an intent to remain permanently. Her testimony was consistent with her visa’s stated purpose, and her husband’s corroborative evidence further supported her case.
• The Board’s reliance on ambiguous testimony to infer intent was unjustified, as desire and intent are distinct legal concepts.

The court emphasized that exclusion decisions must be supported by substantial evidence and that arbitrary actions by immigration officials warrant judicial intervention. It concluded that the woman qualified as a nonimmigrant visitor and directed her admission upon her husband’s provision of a $500 bond.