Interim Decision 4k2704 

MATTER. OF DEJONG 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-22461648 

Decided by Board May 28, 1979 

(1) In proceedings before the Board, an amicus curiae is not a party to the proceedings, 

but is a participant only for the benefit of the Board in eases of general public interest, 

and serves this purpose by making suggestions to the Board, by providing supplemental 

assistance to existing parties and by insuring a complete presentation of difficult issues 

so that the Board may reach a proper decision. 

(2) In a motion to reconsider a Board decision, the moving party must be requesting 

reconsideration of points previously raised by one of the parties and dealt with by the 

Board in its decision. 

(3) In a case involving the question of the jurisdiction of an immigration judge under 

section 235(b) of the Act, 8 U.S. C. 1225(b), to consider the admissibility of alien 

crewman, the Seafarer's International Union of North America had no right to move for 

reconsideration of the Board's decision because it was not a party to the proceedings, 

but participated in the proceedings only as an amicus curiae, and in addition, raised a 

point not advanced by either party to the proceedings. See Knetsch v. United States , 

364 U.S. 361, 370 (1960). 

In re: JOLLE DeJONG, Master of the Motor Tanker "DOSINA" and other crew members. 

EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20)]—Immigrantsnot in possession of immigrant visas 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS: 

Howard Schulman, Esquire 

Schulman, Abarbanel & Schlesinger 

350 Fifth Avenue 

New York, New York 10001 

Counsel of record: 

Donald L. Sapkir, Esquire 

Edward D. Ranson, Esquire 

Robert B. Yoshitomi, Esquire 

Lillick, McHose & Charles 

Two EmbareedPro Center 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Autcus CURIAE: 

Richard H. Markowitz, Esquire Carl C. David, Esquire 

Markowitz & Glanstein Alvord and Alvord 

50 Broadway 346 West 17th Street 

New York, New York 10004 New York, New York 10011 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members. Board 

Member Farb abstained. 

739 
Interim Decision #2704 

In a decision dated July 11, 1977, an immigration judge found the 

applicants, the master and 36 crewmen of the M/T "Dosina", inadmissible under section 212(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 

U.S. C. 1182(a)(20), and ordered them excluded and deported. The immigration judge then certified his decision to this Board. In a decision 

dated July 14, 1978, this Board reversed the immigration judge's decision and terminated the exclusion proceedings. The basis of this reversal was the Board's finding that the aliens involved were crewmen 

within the meaning of section 101(a)(15)(D) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(D), and as such were not amenable to exclusion proceedings, 

but rather only to the procedures set forth in section 252(a) of the Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1282(a), governing crewmen specifically. The Seafarer's International Union of North America (SIUNA), which submitted a brief as 

amicus curiae to the Board when the case was certified to the Board by 

the immigration judge, now moves the Board to reconsider its decision 

of July 14, 1978, reversing the immigration judge's decision. The motion 

will be denied. 

In its motion, the SIUNA has combined two objectives: its desire to 

press the point that it is an interested party with standing in this case, 

and its opposition to the Board's finding that. the immigration judge's 

decision was incorrect.' Both of these objectives, however, have been 

melded into one theory in essence: that reconsideration is mandated 

because the economic interests of the Union's members are affected by 

the decision. This proposition, however, tends to ignore the major issue 

in dispute in the Board's decision. This issue was the question of the 

immigration judge's jurisdiction to consider the admissibility of the alien 

crewmen who had applied for temporary permission to land in the 

United States. 

The Board analyzed this question in two steps. The first was the 

question of resolving whether or not the aliens involved were crei,vmen. 

The Board concluded that they were, after considering the points raised 

both on oral argument before the Board and in the various briefs filed by 

the ship's crew, the Service, and several amicus curiae, among them the 

SIUNA. The seond step was deciding whether or not the immigration 

judge had jurisdiction under section 235(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), 

to consider the admissibility of alien crewmen. Again, after considering 

the points raised, the Board concluded that he did not, and ordered the 

exclusion proceedings terminated. 

This end result, the termination of the proceedings, it should be 

pointed out, was the object of both the aliens involved and the Service, 

-who had contended from the beginning that the exclusion proceedings 

We note that the file contains two motions with the same points contained in them, We 

Iiave treated them as one. 

740 
Interim Decision #2704 

had been improperly begun. The SIUNA became involved in the proceedings only as an amicus curiae pursuant to 8 C. F.R. 292.1(d) because the 

Board considered the issues raised to be important. 2In proceedings 

before the Board, an amicus curiae is not a party to the proceedings but 

is a participant only for the benefit of the Board in cases of general 

public interest_ An amicus curiae serves this purpose by making 

suggestions to the Board, by providing supplemental assistance to existing parties and by insuring a complete presentation of difficult issues so 

that the Board may reach a proper decision. The Union here was never a 

party to the proceedings and we do not consider the fact that an amicus 

brief was filed sufficient grounds for the Union to enter a motion to 

reconsider our decision. To do so, would be to allow the Union to reopen 

the proceedings, an action to which neither the aliens involved nor the 

Service have given their assent. We know of no legal principle which 

would dictate such a result, particularly where the major contention of 

the Union is not a point advanced in argument by the aliens involved, or 

by the Service. See, Knetsch, v. United States, 364 U.S. 361, 370 (1960). 

In addition, even if the union had the right to move for reconsideration, the motion would have to be considered defective. While, as 

previously noted, the motion appears to combine two objectives, the 

only basis for reconsideration offered is that the Union has substantial 

economic interests in the matter, as the alien crewmen compete with 

United States seamen for the same jobs and the interests of these 

seamen have not been adequately represented in the proceedings. In 

this regard, the Union contends that the regulatory function of exclusion 

proceedings concerning aliens who seek employment in the United 

States cannot be denied, and the primary purpose of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act is to protect United States labor from the influx of 

foreign labor. 

While we will not pass judgment on these assertions, we must point 

out that the economic effect of such alien crewmen was not the issue 

before the Board. The question was a narrow one of the jurisdiction of 

the immigration judge under the statute to consider an alien crewman's 

admissibility when he has applied for temporary permission to land. 

Under section 235(b) of the Act, an immigration judge clearly has no 

such jurisdiction. The union does not address this issue in its motion to 

reconsider. Even if we were to find that the Union had the right to file 

such a motion, it has not asked the Board to reconsider the only two 

points which were before the Board, namely whether or not the aliens 

were crewmen, and if they were, whether or not the immigration judge 

had the specified jurisdiction over them. The economic detriment to 

"The Board may grant permission to appear, on a ease-by-ease basis, as amicus 

canoe, to an attorney or to an organization represented by an attorney, if the public 

interest will be served thereby." 

741 
Interim Decision #2704 

United States seamen represented by the Union, caused by alien crewmen, is therefore irrelevant to the jurisdictional issue. The Union's 

argument that its members' interests can only be protected if the 

proceedings are reopened tends to assume that a purpose of the Board's 

review was to protect these interests. This ignores the fact that the sole 

purpose of our review was to insure that the Immigration and Nationality Act was properly interpreted as it related to the jurisdiction of 

an immigration judge in regard to alien crewmen. For these reasons the 

motion to reconsider will be denied. 

ORDER: The motion is denied. 

Board Member Ralph Farb abstained from consideration of this case_ 

742