MATTER OF SS. BELLINA 

In FINE Proceedings 

NOR-10/33.103 

Decided by Board Auguet 26, 1960 

Fine—Section 254—Liability not incurred where crewman's attempt to land is 

thwarted by drowning. 

No fine liability Is incurred under section 254 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. for failure to detain on board an alien crewman whose body was 

found floating near the shore line, having apparently drowned while attempting to escape from the vessel. Landing is the essence of the violation under section 254; and, here, no landing was accomplished. 

IN RE: SS. Bellina, which arrived at the port of Norfolk, Virginia, from foreign on April 11, 1960. Alien crewman involved : L--V—. 

BAsts cos FINE: Act of 1952—Section 254 (8 U.S.C. 1284). 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: This appeal is directed to an administrative penalty of $200 ($1,000 mitigated to the extent of $800), which the 

District Director at Washington, D.C., has ordered imposed on 

W. J. Browning & Company, agents for the vessel, for failure to 

detain on hoard the vessel the above-named alien crewman who was 

not granted a conditional landing permit. The appeal will he sustained and the fine remitted. 

The basic facts of this case are undisputed. Upon arrival, the 

above-named alien crewman was not granted a conditional landing 

permit and a Form I-95 "Refused" was issued as to him. The 

master immediately picked up the crewman's passport, retained it in 

. his possession, and instructed the crewman that he could not advance 

him any money while the vessel remained in the United States and 

that he was not to leave the vessel. As a further precaution, the 

master had the vessel's agents arrange for shore guards to stay 

aboard from 7:00 a.m. until 12:00 midnight each day, which were 

the hours that the ship-to-shore launch was running while the vessel 

was anchored in the stream about 2000 yards offshore. The shore 

guards remained on the vessel from April 11, 1960, until the vessel 

sailed foreign on the night of April 14, 1960. Thereafter, on the 

morning of April 15, 1960, the body of this crewman was found 

62 
floating in the -water near the Newport News shoreline. He had 

apparently jumped overboard after having donned a life jacket and 

strapped a plastic bag to his waist in which he placed about $700 in 

American money. The cause of his death was determined to be 

drowning. 

We have carefully considered the opinion of the district director 

in this case, the entire evidence of record, and the representations of 

counsel for the agents and the Service. On the basis of such consideration, we hold that liability to fine hai not been incurred in 

this case. 

The statute placed upon the agents, among others, the absolute 

duty of detaining this crewman aboard the vessel at all times until 

he was granted a conditional landing permit. But the purpose of 

this statute is to prevent the illegal landing of crewmen. And, obviously, on the facts of this record, the purpose of the statute was 

accomplished. The drowning of the crewman prevented his landing. 

Secondly, it is a well-recognized rule of statutory construction that 

no statute should be st, construed as to lead to an absurd result. We 

are of the opinion that the facts peculiar to this case bring it clearly 

within that rule. 

For the reasons hereinbefore stated, we think it is immaterial from 

a fine liability standpoint that it may not have been the efforts of 

the agents which prevented the crewman from effecting a landing 

in the United States. The landing is the essence of the violation 

and without it there can be no fine. 

Additionally, we are aware, as the Service representative has 

pointed out, that we have consistently held that where a crewman 

has made even a brief contact with shore, except for the purpose- of 

carrying on ship's business, there has been a landing and a technical 

violation of the law. But here it is conceded that there was no landing. Hence, those decisions are not binding in this instance. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and that no 

fine be imposed.