United States Ex Rel. Polymeris v. Trudell
Headline: Upheld exclusion of two Greek women who had lived in New York, ruling they could not reenter because they lacked valid immigration visas or reentry permits under the Immigration Act of 1924.
Holding: The Court held that two Greek citizens who previously lived in New York were properly excluded because they lacked an unexpired immigration visa or reentry permit, and the burden to prove the right to enter rested on them.
- Gives immigration officials power to exclude returning residents without valid visas or reentry permits.
- Places the burden on returning residents to prove they have government permission to reenter.
- Confirms prior lawful residence alone does not guarantee reentry into the United States.
Summary
Background
Aspasia Polymeris and her daughter Antigone are Greek citizens who lawfully entered the United States in 1909 and made New York their home. In 1923 they went back to Greece for what they say was a temporary visit after Aspasia’s husband became ill; his death and estate matters kept them abroad into 1924. They made several unsuccessful requests to the U.S. Consul in Athens for documents to return. In 1929 they obtained permission to travel through Canada on a false itinerary and, in 1930, presented themselves at the U.S. border in Vermont, where immigration officials detained them and they asked a court to order their release from custody.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the women had a right to reenter the United States. Under the Immigration Act of 1924, returning residents must have either a valid immigration visa or a valid permit to reenter under the regulations. The Court emphasized that the relators bear the burden of proof to show the United States has given them permission to return. Because the women did not present an unexpired visa or reentry permit, and no authorized government official had admitted them, the Court concluded they were properly excluded. The Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, noting a conflicting lower-court ruling existed but finding no basis to overturn the exclusion.
Real world impact
The ruling confirms that lawful prior residence does not automatically allow reentry. Returning residents must have current visas or official reentry permits, and immigration authorities may detain and exclude those without them. This decision is a final resolution of these particular petitions and affirms application of the 1924 law in similar cases.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?