(a) Revocation and removal while vessel is in the United States. A crewman whose landing permit is subject to revocation pursuant to section 252(b) of the Act may be taken into custody by any immigration officer without a warrant of arrest and be transferred to the vessel of arrival, if the vessel is in any port in the United States and has not departed foreign since the crewman was issued his or her conditional landing permit. Detention and removal of the crewman shall be at the expense of the transportation line on which the crewman arrived. Removal may be effected on the vessel of arrival or, if the master of the vessel has requested in writing, by alternate means if removal on the vessel of arrival is impractical.
(b) Revocation and removal after vessel has departed the United States. A crewman who was granted landing privileges prior to April 1, 1997, and who has not departed foreign on the vessel of arrival, or on another vessel or aircraft if such permission was granted pursuant to § 252.1(f), is subject to removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act as an alien deportable pursuant to section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act. A crewman who was granted landing privileges on or after April 1, 1997, and who has not departed foreign on the vessel of arrival, or on another vessel or aircraft if such permission was granted pursuant to § 252.1(f), shall be removed from the United States without a hearing, except as provided in § 208.2(b)(1) of this chapter. In either case, if the alien is removed within 5 years of the date of landing, removal of the crewman shall be at the expense of the owner of the vessel. In the case of a crewman ordered removed more than 5 years after the date of landing, removal shall be at the expense of the appropriation for the enforcement of the Act.
[62 FR 10388, Mar. 6, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
G-d-m, 25 I. & N. Dec. 82 (BIA 2009).
“See section 240(a)(2) of the Act; see also 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 (b) (2009) (providing that a crewman who was granted landing privileges prior to April 1, 1997, and who has not departed is subject to removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act).”
Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2012).
“§ 1282 (b); see also 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 (b) (an alien crew member whose landing permit has expired may be “removed from the United States without a hearing, except as provided in § 208.”
United States Ex Rel. Szlajmer v. Esperdy, 188 F. Supp. 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).
· cites it 2× “§ 1282 (b)) and its im-plemental regulations ( 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 ). The question, therefore, is whether an alien crewman, who is ashore in the United States under a crewman’s landing permit which has not expired, is entitled to a hearing under § 243(h) and 8 C.”
Veljko Stanisic v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. Etc., 393 F.2d 539 (9th Cir. 1968).
· cites it 2× “” 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 . 13 . Subsection (e) of § 1284 provides: If the Attorney General finds that deportation of an alien crewman under this section on the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived is impracticable or impossible, or would cause undue hardship to such alien crewman,…”
M/v Arnfinn Stange, 8 I. & N. Dec. 639 (BIA 1960).
· cites it 2× “8 CFR 252.2 provides for the revocation of conditional landing permits.”
United States ex rel. Martinez-Angosto v. Mason, 344 F.2d 673 (2d Cir. 1965).
“1282(b), 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 , which provides for a summary procedure for the return of a seaman when the ship is still in port; after the ship has left port, a deserting seaman being expelled under the Act is entitled to the deportation procedure prescribed in section 242.”
Di Santillo, 18 I. & N. Dec. 407 (BIA 1983).
“The summary procedure set forth in section 252(b) under which the conditional permit to land may be revoked and the alien deported without a hearing represents a narrow exception to the depor- tation procedures found in section 242(b).”
United States ex rel. Kordic v. Esperdy, 276 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1967).
“§ 1282 (b) and 8 C.F.R. § 252.2 . The Goranka was still in a United States port at that time, scheduled to sail on July 7,1967.”
M/v Oceanic Amity, 13 I. & N. Dec. 418 (BIA 1969).
“Practically speaking, the carrier itself appears to concede this point in the antepenultimate paragraph of the present motion, wherein it makes specific reference to 8 CFR 252.2, which was promulgated pursuant to statutory authority and spells out the procedure for revocation of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.