Task: songer_othappth

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the appeals court level. That is, it is conceded that the trial court properly reached the merits, but the issue is whether, in spite of that concession, the appellant has a right to an appeals court decision on the merits (e.g., the issue became moot after the trial).  The issue is: "Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial? (e.g., the case became moot after the original trial)" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

CHASE, Circuit Judge.
The relator-appellant is an alien who was lawfully admitted to this country for permanent residence in 1913. He lived here until March, 1921, when he went abroad for a temporary visit. His visit was prolonged until October, 1927, when he re-entered the United States surreptitiously without either an immigration visa or a re-entry permit. He was arrested on November 9, 1936 on a warrant charging that at the time of his entry in 1927 he was not in the possession of an unexpired immigration visa. After due hearings a warrant of deportation was issued. He surrendered and then sued out a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was dismissed upon hearing and he has appealed.
His contention is that, having prior to his surreptitious entry acquired a domicile here which he had never relinquished and to which he was returning in 1927, he could enter of right without an immigration visa. Consequently he did not violate the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. -§§ 145, 146, 166, 167, 179, 201 et seq., and at most entered only contrary to the Immigration Act of 1917, 39 Stat. 874, in that he did not present himself for inspection. The latter violation of the law cannot be the basis of deportation now since the period of limitation has expired.
We will assume that the alien was returning in 1927 to an unrelinquished domicile in this country but, even ^o, he could not enter lawfully unless he had either a re-entry permit or an unexpired immigration visa. United States v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279, 52 S.Ct. 143, 76 L.Ed. 291; Id., 2 Cir., 49 F.2d 730. Despite the fact of his previous lawful residence here, he was an alien immigrant within the definition of that term in Sec. 3 of the Immigration Act of 1924, 8 U.S.C.A. § 203. .Karnuth v. United States, 279 U.S. 231, 49 S.Ct. 274, 73 L.Ed. 677. He has failed to show that he was within any of the exceptions dispensing with his neefl for an immigration visa. It is immaterial that he might, perhaps, have secured a re-entry permit which would have done away with the need of an immigration visa for he had no re-entry permit. Sec. 13(b) of the 1924 Act, 8 U.S. C.A. § 213(b), upon which he relies merely permits returning immigrants who have complied with the prescribed regulations to enter without an immigration visa but this relator had not so complied.
That he admittedly violated the 1917 Act is no evidence, of course, that he did not violate the provisions of the 1924 Act also and the record shows clearly that he did. Having entered contrary to the last mentioned statute without an unexpired immigration visa, he was subject to deportation at any time. 8 U.S.C.A. § 214. Deportation on this ground is not barred by the lapse of time. United States ex rel. Giuriciu v. Day, 2 Cir., 54 F.2d 362. That is the ground on which he was ordered deported and, accordingly, it was not error to dismiss the writ.
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court refuse to rule on the merits of the appeal because of some threshhold issue other than timeliness or frivolousness that was relevant on appeal but not at the original trial?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D