Interim Decision #1922 

MATTER OF M/V GUADALUPE! 

In Fine Proceedings 

SAJ-10/50.179 

Decided by Board November 18, 1968 

The carrier's contention that due diligence was exercised where the alien 

presented a wax-sealed envelope from the American Consulate asserting it 

contained the necessary visa, is rejected as a defense to fine liability 

under section 273 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for bringing 

an alien without a visa, since under existing practice (22 CFR 42.124(a), 

(b), (c) and (d)) the forms constituting the visa are not sealed. 

BASIS FOR FINE: Act of 1952—Section 273(a) [8 U.S.C. 1323]. 

IN RE: M/V Guadalupe, which arrived at San Juan, Puerto Rico, from foreign, on March 22, 1968. Alien passenger involved: Rafael Cruzata-Lambert. 

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: M. A. Gonzalez, Vice-President & Gen. Mgr. 

International Shipping Agency, Inc. 

P. O. Box 2748 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903 

This appeal is directed to an administrative penalty of $1,000 

which the District Director at an Juan has ordered imposed on 

the International Shipping Agency, Inc., as agents for a vessel, 

for bringing to the United States from a place outside thereof, 

other than foreign contiguous territory, the above-named alien 

passenger who was not in possession of an unexpired visa and 

was not exempt from the presentation of same by the statute or 

the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The request for 

cancellation of the fine must be denied and the appeal will be dismissed. 

Rafael Cruzata-Lambert is a 24-year-old native and national of 

Cuba, who arrived in the United States from Spain as a passenger on this vessel, at the time, place and in the manner described 

above. He was presented for immigration inspection as an applicant for admission for permanent residence. He was in possession 

of a valid passport, but he was not in possession of an unexpired 

67 
Interim Decision * 1922 

visa or other document valid in lieu thereof for admission into 

the United States. Accordingly, liability to the fine has been 

incurred, and this is uncontested. 

Section 273 of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes no 

provision for mitigation of a fine arising thereunder? However, 

subsection (c) of the statute does provide for remission (forgive. 

ness in full) of the penalty if, prior to the passenger's foreign 

embarkation, the carrier did not know and could not have ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence that he was an 

alien and required but lacked a valid visa or lieu document. Since 

the record shows that the carrier knew this passenger was an 

alien, the only question remaining for our consideration is 

whether it knew or could have ascertained by the exercise of due 

diligence that he lacked a visa. 

The carrier claims that when this passenger came for his ticket 

he was accompanied by his parents, also Cuban nationals, and 

that all were requested to present their United States visas. It 

asserts that they showed the ticket agent a big wax-sealed envelope from the American consulate in Bilbao, Spain, and declared 

that it contained visas for each member of the family. It contends 

that it could not open the official-envelope because it was sealed 

and, therefore, had to take the aliens' word for the fact that the 

envelope contained visas for all. 

The record, however, contains a memorandum from the examining immigration officer, dated October 21, 1968. It sets forth 

that visas for this alien's parents were packaged in the normal 

manner, i.e., various documents were enclosed in a brown manila 

envelope with appropriate Forms FS-511 for the parents 

attached to the outside of the envelope with grommets and 

ribbon. According to 22 CFR 42.124(a), (b), (c) and (d), Form 

FS-511, with a Form FS-510 (Visa Application) attached 

immediately beneath it, constitutes the visa; and the only documents which would be enclosed in a sealed envelope and could 

only be examined by an immigration officer would be confidential 

relating documents, but not the visa itself. Under these circumstances, we agree with the District Director that only a cursory 

inspection was necessary on the carrier's part to ascertain that 

this alien passenger was not in possession of the required visa. 

Accordingly, we concur in said official's conclusion that due diligence was not exercised in this matter, and that remission of the 

1Matter of Plane "CUT-480," 5 I. & N. Dec. 226. 

68 
Interim Decision *1922 

fine is not warranted. All we can add is that the carrier is 

responsible for the acts of its representatives abroad. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the request for cancellation of the 

fine be denied; that the District Director's decision be affirmed; 

and that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed. 

69