1. Section 6 of the Quota Act, as amended, imposing penalties
for bringing to the United States any alien not admissible under
the terms of the Act, applies to all aliens who are not within the
quota or one of the excepted classes, whether seeking admission as
immigrants or not. P.
287 U. S.
327.
2. A penalty under the section may legally be imposed upon a
transportation company for bringing to the United States an alien
who upon arrival is found to be inadmissible, although the statute
imposes no penalty, other than possible exclusion, upon the alien
for coming here to present evidence in support of his right to
enter. P.
287 U. S.
327.
3. The Secretary did not abuse his discretion in refusing to
remit a fine for bringing an inadmissible alien to the United
States where he gave the carrier a hearing and acted on substantial
evidence tending to show that, by the exercise of reasonable
diligence in making inquiry of the alien before sailing, it could
have ascertained that the alien was not entitled to admission as a
member of an excepted class. P.
287 U. S.
328.
4. The transportation company was bound to know the law that a
consular visa on the alien's passport, noting that he was going to
the United States "on business," did not, of itself, entitle the
alien to entry as a member of that excepted class. P.
287 U. S. 329.
54 F.2d 997 reversed.
Certiorari, 286 U.S. 538, to review a judgment affirming a
judgment against the Collector in a suit brought by the steamship
company to recover a fine imposed on it under the Quota Act.
Page 287 U. S. 325
MR. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, an operator of steamships, brought suit in the
District Court for Southern New York to recover a fine imposed on
it by the Secretary of Labor under § 6 of the Quota Act of 1921, c.
8, 42 Stat. 5, as amended May 11, 1922, c. 187, 42 Stat. 540, for
bringing into the United States an alien, inadmissible under that
Act. Upon pleadings and affidavits, the District Court gave summary
judgment for the respondent which was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, 54 F.2d 997. The case is here on
certiorari.
The Quota Act of 1921 imposed restrictions on the number of
immigrants of any nationality who might annually be admitted to the
United States, but provided by § 2(a)(4) that the restriction
should not apply to "aliens visiting the United States as tourists
or temporarily for business or pleasure." The 1922 amendment of the
Act added § 6, [
Footnote 1]
which provides:
"That it shall be unlawful for any person . . . to bring to the
United States . . . any alien not admissible under the terms of
this Act or regulations made thereunder, and if it appears to the
satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that any alien has been so
brought, such person . . . shall pay to the collector of customs .
. . the sum of $200 for each alien so brought, and in addition a
sum equal to that paid by such alien for his transportation . . . ,
such latter sum to be delivered . . . to the alien. . . ."
The section also provides:
"Such fine shall not be remitted or refunded unless it appears
to the satisfaction of the Secretary of Labor that such
inadmissibility was not known to, and could not have been
ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence by, such person
. . . prior to the departure of the vessel. . . . "
Page 287 U. S. 326
The record in the present case raises no question of the
correctness or sufficiency of the procedure before the Secretary of
Labor. The only issue is the legality upon the unchallenged facts
of the imposition of the fine and the refusal of the Secretary to
remit it.
On February 14, 1924, respondent brought a German alien to the
United States on its steamship
Bremen. On embarkation, the
alien had represented to the respondent that he was going to the
United States on a temporary visit for the purpose of collecting an
inheritance, and was in possession of a United States consular visa
bearing the notation: "Purpose to proceed to the United States on
business only within the meaning of § 2 of the Restrictive
Immigration Law." Upon arrival in the United States, the alien was
detained by immigration officials, and, upon a hearing before a
Board of Special Inquiry, his claim that he was visiting the United
States temporarily for business was rejected. He was ordered
deported, on the ground that he was a quota immigrant, and the
quota applicable to his nationality was then exhausted. At the
hearing before the Board, it appeared that he arrived without money
or a return ticket. His passage had been paid by a relative in the
United States. He claimed to be coming to the United States to
collect an inheritance of $400, but was without documentary
evidence to support this claim, and it had cost him nearly one-half
of the amount of the legacy to come here.
The Secretary notified the respondent that the ascertained facts
indicated its liability to a fine (including the repayment of
passage money) for bringing the alien to the United States, but
permitted the vessel to clear upon respondent's depositing with the
collector under protest the amounts to be paid. The imposition of
the fine was protested on the ground that respondent had accepted
the alien for transportation in good faith, in reliance upon the
consular visa and the notation upon it. It does not
Page 287 U. S. 327
appear that the respondent made any inquiry as to the truth of
the alien's claim to be a temporary visitor to the United States
for the purpose of collecting an inheritance. After a hearing, the
Secretary required payment of the fine and passage money, and
refused to remit the penalties.
The court below held that the fine was illegally imposed, for,
if the alien was in fact within the excepted class, he was
admissible; hence it was lawful for him to come to the United
States to present evidence in support of his right to enter, and it
was lawful for the respondent to bring him. The respondent argues
here, in addition, that the general purpose of the Quota Act was to
exclude immigrants, and the provisions of § 6 imposing penalties
for bringing an "alien," must be read as applicable only to aliens
who seek admission as immigrants.
The statute itself answers the contention that the act does not
apply because the alien did not embark as an immigrant. Section 6
refers to "any alien not admissible under the terms of this Act"
and § 2(d) provides that, when the aliens of any nationality
admitted in any fiscal year shall exceed the quota, "all other
aliens of such nationality, except as otherwise provided in this
Act, who may apply for admission during the same fiscal year, shall
be excluded." Thus, all aliens, whether they seek admission as
immigrants or not, if they are not within the quota or one of the
excepted classes, are "not admissible under the terms of" the Quota
Act.
We do not think it can be said, in the face of the explicit
language of the statute, that the respondent could lawfully bring
the alien, because he lawfully might come to the United States. The
statute imposes no penalty upon the alien for coming beyond the
possible denial of his application to enter. But it does declare
that it shall be unlawful for the steamship company to bring him if
"not admissible," as was the case, and imposes the penalty if
Page 287 U. S. 328
the Secretary finds, as he did, that an inadmissible alien has
been brought. In plain terms, the Act placed on respondent the
burden of acting at its peril that the fine might be imposed in the
case of this alien, as with any other, if the event should prove
that he was inadmissible. Whether the same result would follow if,
as in
Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v.
Elting, 19 F.2d 773;
see North German Lloyd v.
Elting, 48 F.2d 547, 549, the line transported an alien
entitled under the Immigration Rules to present evidence that he
had not abandoned a domicile previously acquired in the United
States, we need not now determine.
The burden which the statute imposes on the transportation
companies is lightened, though not removed, [
Footnote 2] by the provision authorizing the
Secretary to remit the fine if it appears to his satisfaction that
the inadmissibility of the alien could not have been ascertained by
the steamship company "by the exercise of reasonable diligence"
before sailing. We assume that it was the duty of the Secretary to
remit the fine if the evidence established that the alien's
inadmissibility could not have been ascertained by respondent by
the exercise of reasonable diligence before the vessel sailed. But
we cannot say that the discretion which, under the statute he alone
may exercise, was abused. Respondent was bound to know the law
that
Page 287 U. S. 329
the consular visa on the alien's passport did not entitle him to
entry as a member of the excepted class.
Cf. United States ex
rel. Spinosa v. Curran, 4 F.2d 613,
aff'd, 4 F.2d
614. The Secretary gave respondent a hearing and acted on
substantial evidence, already detailed, tending to show that, by
the exercise of reasonable diligence in making inquiry of the alien
before sailing, the respondent could have ascertained that he was
not entitled to admission as a member of the excepted class.
Reversed.
[
Footnote 1]
Section 6 of the Quota Act was superseded by § 16 of the
Immigration Act of 1924, c.190, 43 Stat. 153, 163, 8 U.S.C. §
216.
[
Footnote 2]
Section 6 of the Quota Act of 1921 was added by amendment of May
11, 1922, c. 187, 42 Stat. 540. The amendment as originally
introduced imposed a fine upon the steamship company for bringing
to the United States an alien who was inadmissible under the
statute, and ended with the words "such fine shall not be remitted
or refunded." In conference, the words quoted were deleted, and
what is now the third sentence of § 6, providing for remission of
the fine by the Secretary, was substituted. H.R. No. 945, 67th
Cong., 2d Sess. Before this change, the effect of the section was
to impose the fine without qualification if the steamship company
brought to the United States an inadmissible alien. The addition of
provisions for remission of the fine, once imposed, did not alter
its meaning.