UNITED STATES EX REL. POLYMERIS ET AL.
v.
TRUDELL, IMMIGRATION INSPECTOR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Greek nationals who lawfully entered the United States in 1909 and established domicile in New York were denied re-entry in 1930 after a temporary visit to Greece because they lacked either a valid immigration visa or a return permit as required by the Immigration Act of 1924. The Supreme Court affirmed their exclusion, holding that aliens bear the burden of proving they possess an affirmative right to enter the country granted through proper governmental authorization.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Court.
The relators, Aspasia Polymeris and her daughter Antigone, are Greek citizens who lawfully entered the United States in 1909 and lived for a number of years in New York City, which became and remains their domicil. In 1923, on account of the illness of Aspasia’s husband, they went back to Greece with the intention, which the courts below found that they retained, of making only a temporary visit. The death of the husband and the necessity of settling his estate prolonged their stay until 1924. Beginning in that year they made several unsuccessful applications to the United States Consul General at Athens for documents that would permit them to return to New York.
Finally, in 1929, they got authority to cross Canada, on a pretended trip from Greece to Japan, and, in 1930, presented themselves at St. Albans, Vermont, for admission to the United States. They were taken into custody by the immigration inspector and sought release by habeas corpus, on the. ground that they were entitled to enter the country. It was held that they “ were properly excluded under § 13 (a) of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, 43 Stat. 153, 161, since the Secretary of Labor did not admit them in his discretion, . . . and neither presented an unexpired valid immigration visa or an unexpired valid permit to reenter in accordance with the regulations promulgated under § 13 (b) of that Act.” 49 F. (2d) 730. A contrary decision was reached in Johnson v. Keating, 17 F. (2d) 50.
Therefore a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court.
The relators have no right to enter the United States unless.it has been given to them by the United States.' The burden of proof is upon them to show that they have the right. Immigration Act of 1924, § 23, 43 Stat. 165; Code, Title 8, § 221. By § 13, and the regulations under it, as remarked by the court below, a returning alien can not enter unless he has either an immigration visa or a return permit. The relators must show not only that they ought to be admitted but that the United States, by the only voice authorized to express its will, has said so. Obviously it has not done so, and therefore the judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1953)…he has been here once before or not. He is an entering alien just the same, and may be excluded if unqualified for admission under existing immigration laws. E. g., Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U. S. 538, 547-548 (1895); Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279 (1932). To be sure, a lawful resident alien may not captiously be deprived of his constitutional rights to procedural due process. Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U. S. 590, 601 (1953); cf. Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U. S. 388 (1947). Only the…1 / 2
-
Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1963)…n the same general kind of language, but which are distinguishable on their facts, are Lapina v. Williams, 232 U. S. 78; Lewis v. Frick, 233 U. S. 291; United States ex rel. Claussen v. Day, 279 U. S. 398; United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U. S. 279; and United States ex rel. Stapf v. Corsi, 287 U. S. 129. The only one of these cases which involved an absence from the country as extremely brief as Fleuti’s is Lewis v. Frick, and [*454] in that case deportation was premised on the fact that on h…
-
Bertrand v. Sava, 684 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1982)…h Cir. 1980), aff’d,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (federal government protects “domestic labor market” by turning aliens “back at the border ... rather than [letting them] enter”); see also United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 284 U.S. 279, 52 S.Ct. 143, 76 L.Ed. 291 (1932) (alien held at the Canadian border). . See note 1 supra. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Attorney General may ... in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Keating ex rel. Tarantino, 17 F.2d 50 (1st Cir. 1926)
- United States ex rel. Polymeris v. Trudell, 49 F.2d 730 (2d Cir. 1931)