Opinion ID: 2998283
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wittje’s admission statute.

Text: Wittje first takes issue with the district court’s conclusion that he was admitted to this country pursuant to the 1924 Act and the DPA. Wittje argues that he was admitted pursuant only to the 1924 Act, and consequently, there was no hostile movement restriction on his admission. Recall that it is the DPA (and not the 1924 Act) that contains the hostile movement restriction that forms the basis for the district court’s ultimate conclusion that Wittje was not issued a valid visa. Wittje’s argument is premised on the fact that his application for a visa states that he is applying for a visa pursuant to the 1924 Act and does not reference the DPA. Wittje’s argument is without merit. He received his visa pursuant to the DPA and the 1924 Act. The 1924 Act established quotas by nationality. As mentioned above, however, in the area for listing an applicant’s nationality, Wittje’s application for a visa states that he was “stateless.” The salient fact in Wittje’s application was his claim that he was entitled to a visa because he was a “Volksdeutscher; born in Romania.” It was the DPA with its quota-shifting provision in § 12, and no other immigration statute in force in 1950 that Wittje can cite to, that would have made his ethnicity—a Volksdeutscher— relevant. This conclusion is supported by the affidavit of Chester G. 14 No. 04-3517 7 Dunham. Dunham was, along with McMahon, one of the two vice-consuls responsible for processing visa applications for ethnic Germans at the Salzburg consulate. Dunham was responsible for processing the first half of the alphabet, McMahon the second. Dunham testified that ethnic Germans from countries such as Romania were processed pursuant to the DPA and described the quota-shifting regime of § 12. Dunham’s affidavit confirms what the statutes in effect at the time made clear— Wittje was admitted to this country pursuant to the 1924 Act and the DPA.