Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/253/941/145651/
Timestamp: 2020-01-28 03:04:06
Document Index: 211597909

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 237', '§ 1227', '§ 20', '§ 243', '§ 1253', '§ 1227']

United States of America, Ex Rel. Mile Milanovic, Relator-appellee, v. John L. Murff, As District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, for the District of New York, And/or Whomsoever May Have Custody of the Body of Said Relator, Respondent-appellant, 253 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1958) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Second Circuit › 1958 › United States of America, Ex Rel. Mile Milanovic, Relator-appellee, v. John L. Murff, As District Di...
United States of America, Ex Rel. Mile Milanovic, Relator-appellee, v. John L. Murff, As District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, United States Department of Justice, for the District of New York, And/or Whomsoever May Have Custody of the Body of Said Relator, Respondent-appellant, 253 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1958)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 253 F.2d 941 (2d Cir. 1958) Argued March 5, 1958
Decided April 11, 1958
Roy Babitt, Sp. Asst. U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City (Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., Southern Dist. of New York, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellant.
We agree with Judge Palmieri that Yugoslavia is not the country "whence he (Milanovic) came" within the meaning of § 237(a), Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a). We think that the statute manifests an intention, when an alien is excluded, that the situation existing before the arrival of the alien in this country be restored so far as is possible. It is enough to say that a return to Yugoslavia, a country from which Milanovic fled 13 years ago and with which he has severed all ties, would not be a restoration of the status quo contemplated by the statute. Hence, Yugoslavia is not the country whence he came.
Even were we to apply the test of United States v. Holland-America Line, 2 Cir., 1956, 231 F.2d 373, it cannot be said that Yugoslavia was the country from which Milanovic came. In that case this Court held that "the country whence they came" with reference to the deportation of aliens under § 20, Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 890, 64 Stat. 987, normally was the "country in which the alien has a place of abode and which he leaves with the intention of coming ultimately to this country." 231 F.2d at page 376. Here there is no showing that when Milanovic left Yugoslavia in 1945 he ultimately intended to come to the United States. The most that can be said is that in 1948, three years after leaving Yugoslavia, when he was faced with a return to Italy to face probable deportation by Italy to Yugoslavia, he entered the United States illegally by way of the waters of New York harbor and a swim to a tugboat.
The government urges that an alien subject to deportation rather than exclusion may be sent to any number of countries, § 243(a), Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1253 (a) and that it would be paradoxical if the government were more restricted in its treatment of excludees, such as Milanovic, who, in contemplation of law, have never entered this country. That there may be such a statutory anomaly does not seem to us sufficient reason to ignore the plain distinction in the statute. Indeed, the seriatim listing of countries to which an alien may be deported under the deportation statute, as contrasted to the provision calling only for deporting an excludee to "the country whence he came," indicates a conclusion contrary to the government's contention.
Section 237(a), Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1227(a): "Any alien (other than an alien crewman) arriving in the United States who is excluded under this Act, shall be immediately deported to the country whence he came, in accommodations of the same class in which he arrived, on the vessel or aircraft bringing him, unless the Attorney General, in an individual case, in his discretion, concludes that immediate deportation is not practicable or proper."