Opinion ID: 445617
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The applicable statutory provision.

Text: 16 Laipenieks was found deportable under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(19) which provides for the deportation of any alien who: 17 during the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 1945, under the direction of, or in association with-- 18 (A) the Nazi government of Germany, 19 (B) any government in any area occupied by the military forces of the Nazi government of Germany, 20 (C) any government established with the assistance or cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany, or 21 (D) any government which was an ally of the Nazi government of Germany, 22 ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion. 23 Section 1251(a)(19) was enacted on October 13, 1978, as a Congressional response to a perceived loophole in United States Immigration Law. The first immigration legislation that directed itself to persons who had been involved in persecution of individuals is contained in certain provisions of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (DPA), 62 Stat. 1009 et seq. The DPA was enacted for the broad purpose of providing entrance visas to this country for peoples displaced by the ravages of World War II. However, that legislation contained express provisions rendering certain individuals ineligible for Displaced Person Status. Among those excluded by the DPA were individuals who had assisted the enemy in persecuting civil[ians].... See Fedorenko v. United States, 449 U.S. 490, 495 n. 4, 101 S.Ct. 737, 741 n. 5, 66 L.Ed.2d 686 (1981). 24 Section 10 of the DPA, 62 Stat. 1013, placed the burden of proving eligibility for displaced person status on the applicant seeking admission and provided that [a]ny person who shall willfully make a misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States as an eligible displaced person shall thereafter not be admissible into the United States. 25 The government has succeeded in litigation seeking deportation of several individuals who were admitted to this country under the DPA. See, e.g. Fedorenko, 449 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 737, 66 L.Ed.2d 686; United States v. Koziy, 540 F.Supp. 25 (S.D.Fla.1982), aff'd, 728 F.2d 1314 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 130, 83 L.Ed.2d 70 (1984); United States v. Linnas, 527 F.Supp. 426 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd, 685 F.2d 427 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 883, 103 S.Ct. 179, 74 L.Ed.2d 146 (1982); United States v. Osidach, 513 F.Supp. 51 (E.D.Pa.1981). The general ground for deportation is that the individuals willfully misrepresented facts relating to persecutorial acts and therefore entered the country in violation of Section 10. See Fedorenko, 449 U.S. at 514-15, 101 S.Ct. at 751-52. 26 Section 1251(a)(19) was passed by Congress in recognition that individuals who had not entered this country pursuant to the DPA or the similar provisions of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 and who had assisted Nazi Germany in persecutorial acts were not subject to deportation. See House Report No. 95-1452 at 3, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 4700, 4702. The clear intent of the Section 1251(a)(19) amendment was to allow deportation of individuals who had ordered, incited, assisted or participated in persecutorial acts under the Nazi regime. Id. 27 There is one important difference between the DPA and the Section 1251(a)(19) amendment. In addition to Section 2, Section 13 of the DPA makes ineligible for Displaced Person Status individuals who are or have been a member of, or participated in, any movement which is or has been hostile to the United States. 62 Stat. 1014. In Osidach, the court interpreted Section 13 of the DPA as precluding Displaced Person Status for mere willing membership--without proof of personal participation in acts of persecution--in a movement that persecuted civilians. 513 F.Supp. at 72. 28 We note that no provision parallel to Section 13 of the DPA exists in the Section 1251(a)(19) legislation. Thus, to the extent that DPA cases such as Osidach rely on Section 13 as a ground for deportability, we find them inapposite to the case at bar. It is clear from the plain language of Section 1251(a)(19), that more than willing membership in a movement is required to establish deportability. 29 The DPA cases that interpret Section 2 of the DPA are helpful, however, in interpreting the Section 1251(a)(19) amendment. In Fedorenko, the Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeals' finding that Section 2 of the DPA was only intended to exclude individuals from displaced person status who had voluntarily assisted in the persecution of civilians. 449 U.S. at 511, 101 S.Ct. at 749. Fedorenko stated that the proper analysis under the statute was whether the acts of the individual amounted to assisting in the persecution of civilians: 30 [A]n individual who did no more than cut the hair of female inmates before they were executed cannot be found to have assisted in the persecution of civilians. On the other hand, there can be no question that a guard who was issued a uniform and armed with a rifle and a pistol, who was paid a stipend and was regularly allowed to leave the concentration camp to visit a nearby village and who admitted to shooting at escaping inmates on orders from the commandant of the camp, fits within the statutory language about persons who assisted in the persecution of civilians. Other cases may present more difficult line-drawing problems but we need decide only this case. 31 Id. at 512-13, n. 34, 101 S.Ct. at 750, n. 34. 32 In Osidach, 513 F.Supp. at 70, the court read the above language as requiring that in order to establish participation or assistance, the act of participation must involve some personal activity involving persecution. 33 Similar to Section 2 of the DPA, aliens subject to deportation under Section 1251(a)(19) are those individuals who ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person ... We find that the language and intent of Section 1251(a)(19) requires that deportability may only be sustained when the evidence establishes that the individual in question personally ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in the persecution of individuals. 34 This interpretation is mandated first by the plain language of Section 1251(a)(19). The statutory provision clearly states that deportability is established when the alien  has been found to have ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in persecutorial acts. Mere acquiescence or membership in an organization is insufficient to trigger the deportability provision of Section 1251(a)(19). 35 Second, the intent of the legislation demonstrates that active personal involvement in persecutorial acts needs to be demonstrated before deportability may be established. The following dialogue between Representative Holtzman, a cosponsor of the legislation, and Representative Seiberling occurred during the House debate: 36 Ms. HOLTZMAN.... [T]he bill is intended to cover active participation and not mere acquiescence by the population as a whole ... 37 Mr. SEIBERLING. Would membership in the Nazi party, standing by itself, constitute active participation?Ms. HOLTZMAN. No. 38 124 Cong.Rec. 31649 (1978). 39 In sum, guided by Fedorenko, the language of the statute, and the legislative intent, we find that Section 1251(a)(19) requires in the instant case, that the government provide proof of personal active assistance or participation in persecutorial acts before deportability may be established. See also Kowalchuk, slip op. at 16-22. 40