Notice Regarding Decisions in Volumes I and II I. Reported decisions expressly overruled: (a) 1, I. & N. Dec. 290. See II, I. & N. Dec. 404. (b) 1, I. & N. Dec. 446. See Interim Decision No. 82. (1, I. & N. Dec. 52 distinguished). (Also see II, I. & N. Dec. 733.) II. Unreported decisions mentioned in vol. II as overruled or illadvised: (a) See vol. II, pp. 310, 376, 404, 484, 590, 639, 741. III. Court decisions affecting administrative holdings: (a) 1, I. & N. Dec. 24 and 476. See Attorney General of the United States v. Ricketts, 165 F. (2d) 193 (C. C. A. 9, 1947) and discussion in Dos Reis v. Nicolls, 161 F. (2d) 860 (C. C. A. 1, 1946). (b) 1, I. & N. Dec. 398. See U. S. ex rel. Gibalowski, v. Watkins, U. S. D. C. S. D. N. Y., Jan. 13, 1947, unreported. (C. O. File 5976446.) For State Department view, see Hackworth, G. H., Digest of International Law, vol. III, pp. 289–297. (c) 1, I. & N. Dec. 309. See U. S. ex rel Goodwin v. Karnuth, 74 F. Supp. 660, W. D. N. Y., 1947. Also see Matter of B----, A-5882390, B. I. A., Mar. 25, 1948. Also see Interim Decision No. 87. (d) 1, I. & N. Dec. 440. See rule restated II, I. & N. Dec. 578, and Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 333 U. S. 6. (Also see 1, I. & N. Dec. 490.) IV. Other cases to be noted: (a) 1, I. & N. Dec. 352-Assault. (Conclusion reaffirmed July 8, 1947 See II, I. & N. Dec. 733. See Interim Decision No. 81. (b) 1, I. & N. Dec. 52-Assault. Also see Interim Decisions Nos. 82 and 83. (As to Utah case, see 1, I. & N. Dec. 209.) (c) 1, I. & N. Dec. 314. (Bigamy, Massachusetts.) See II, I. & N. Dec. 328. (d) 1, I. & N. Dec. 398, 563. See unreported B. I. A. majority decision of Dec. 14, 1945 (A-5925019, formerly 56071/545, Matter of P.-_-), in exclusion proceedings where appeal to the B. I. A. was later withdrawn, parole in exclusion proceedings terminated, and the person choosing to proceed as an alien applied for suspension of deportation which was granted on a finding of alienage. Also see Adj. File (AA-7857), 0300-131327, Mar. 5, 1947, Matter of S... Also see, 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 504 (1910). XIV NOTICE REGARDING DECISIONS IN VOLS. I AND II IV. Other cases to be noted-continued (e) 1, I. & N. Dec. 34. Note on military conviction. See 1, I. & N. Designated as (f) 1, I. & N. Dec. 450. International Workers Order. (g) 1, I. & N. Dec. 662. See II, I. & N. Dec. 610 (Illinois). (Also see (h) As to reference in 1, I. & N. Dec. 519 to Matter of S.--- (56020/580) (Michigan), dealing with a reduced plea in a State where grades or degrees of manslaughter are not recognized by statute (like in Florida, Michigan, Connecticut, Ohio, New Jersey), see II, I. & N. Dec. 559 (Ohio). Also see unreported case, Matter of D.... (A-6214908, Oct. 17, 1947, B. I. A.) (New Jersey), which discussed Matter of S____ above. (i) 1, I. & N. Dec. 105. See 1, I. & N. Dec. 578, 523, 470 and 365. See also 1, I. & N. Dec. 418, 555. See II, I. & N. Dec. 672. (j) 1, I. & N. Dec. 137. (k) II, I. & N. Dec. 883. See II, I. & N. Dec. 553. See Interim Decision No. 93. (1) II, I. & N. Dec. 783 (Canada). See 1, I. & N. Dec. 558, 596 (Canada). See II, I. & N. Dec. 243 (Mexico). (m) II, I. & N. Dec. 778. See Interim Decisions Nos. 32 and 88. V. File number changed in (a) 1, I. & N. Dec. 540. reported decisions in volume I. Now A-5937145, formerly 56121/994. IN THE MATTER OF S. S. "RENVOYLE" In FINE Proceedings 56160/122 Decided by Board January 7, 1944 Reaffirmed by Board May 4, 1944 Decided by Central Office June 24, 1946 Fine-Failure to detain alien seaman, after notice-Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924-Absolute duty-Mitigation of fine-Section 20 (supra) as amended by act approved December 19, 1944. 1. Under section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924, there is an absolute duty to detain an alien seaman on board the vessel after notice to do so, and it is no defense that such seaman did not intend to remain in the United States, nor does an exception arise merely because such seaman actually departs with his vessel. 2. Under section 20 (supra) as amended by the act approved December 19, 1944, mitigation of fine is authorized where extenuating circumstances justify. BEFORE THE BOARD (January 7, 1944) Discussion: This is a fine proceeding under section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1924, against W— H—, master of the S. S. HRenvoyle for failure to detain the alien seaman above named after being ordered to do so by the immigration authorities. Both notice to detain and notice of intention to fine were served upon the master on October 9, 1943. When the S. S. Renvoyle arrived at the port of Buffalo, N. Y., on October 9, 1943, the alien seaman named along with five others, was ordered detained on board. Immediately prior to the vessel's departure, that same night, the alien named was not on board. The master advises that the seaman involved surreptitiously left the vessel during its brief stay in port, but departed on the vessel when it sailed foreign. It seems that after the vessel began its return voyage the alien named hailed it from a bridge and was taken aboard before the vessel actually left Buffalo. A protest has been filed by Brown & Co., as agents of the vessel named, under which it is alleged that no notice to detain was served on them as agents. These proceedings are not brought against the agents. We shall, however, consider their protest as though it was submitted in behalf of the master. The protest, which includes an affidavit of the master, relates the facts above outlined and urges that no fine be |