Status — Treaty trader — Nonimmigrant — Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924 — "Substantial trade" requirement.
An alien (Chinese) seeking temporary admission to the United States for the purpose of carrying on trade pursuant to treaty between this country and China is not precluded from establishing that he is entitled to enter as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of 1924, merely because he will act as bookkeeper for a salary for the firm here of which he is a partner or he will order goods from China and Mexico, where the evidence establishes the partnership here is engaged in carrying on substantial trade between this country and China.
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of 1924 — Immigration not in possession of a valid immigration visa.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization dated December 13, 1948, who, in his opinion affirmed the excluding decision of the Board of Special Inquiry.
The subject appellant testified that he was born in Canton, China, on November 29, 1889; that he is a citizen of the country of his nativity; and that he is a merchant by occupation.
He applied for admission to the United States at Nogales, Ariz., on October 26, 1948, at which time he was refused admission because he was found to be an immigrant not in possession of an unexpired immigration visa as required under the provisions of section 13 (a) of the Immigration Act approved May 26, 1924.
The appellant testified that he has resided in Mexico from 1909 until the present time and that he is seeking admission to this country for a temporary period of six months only for the reasons hereinafter set forth.
At the time of application the appellant presented a passport valid until November 25, 1948, bearing a visa issued by the American consul under the provisions of section 3 (6) of the act approved May 26, 1924. The appellant is seeking admission to the United States for the purpose of carrying on trade pursuant to a treaty between this country and China.
At the moment he is the owner of a store in Sonora, Mexico. He is coming to the United States to visit a brother and is particularly destined to the H---- H---- Co., 737 Washington Street, San Francisco, Calif. The appellant asserts that he has invested the sum of $1,000 as a partner in the aforementioned company in California and that the said investment, according to a supporting affidavit made part of the record, is a one-thirty-second share in that partnership. The partnership is engaged in the importation of merchandise from China and the firm exports fruit and preserves.
The principal cause for exclusion is the statement of the alien that he will be the bookkeeper and he further stated that he will order merchandise from China and Mexico. He further stated that he will be paid a salary of about $100 a month.
The appellant's wife and children are also coming to the United States with the husband and they expect to return to Mexico.
The principal question here involved is whether or not, on the basis of the evidence of record, this appellant has in fact established that the partnership is engaged in carrying on substantial trade between this country and China. The evidence of record, as hereinabove set forth, appears to so establish, and after careful consideration of all of the evidence of record, it is the conclusion of this Board that the alien is in fact entitled to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization be and the same is hereby sustained and the alien admitted as a nonimmigrant under the provisions of section 3 (6) of the act of May 26, 1924, to carry on trade under and pursuant to treaty.