## Facts

- Gonzales was born in the Philippine Islands in 1913, then a U.S. territory, and came to the continental United States in 1930.
- At the time of his arrival, he was a U.S. national owing permanent allegiance to the United States and was not subject to federal statutes governing exclusion or deportation of aliens.
- In 1941, Gonzales was convicted in California of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to one year in a county jail.
- In 1950, Gonzales was convicted in Washington of second-degree burglary and sentenced to an indeterminate term with a minimum of two years in a state penitentiary.
- After an administrative hearing in 1951, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ordered Gonzales deported to the Philippine Islands under § 19(a) of the Immigration Act of 1917 as an alien who, “after entry,” had been sentenced more than once to qualifying terms of imprisonment for crimes involving moral turpitude.
- Gonzales sought habeas relief in federal district court, arguing he was not deportable because he had not made an “entry” within the meaning of § 19(a); the district court denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed and directed Gonzales’s release; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether Gonzales could be deported under § 19(a) of the Immigration Act of 1917 as an alien convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude “after entry,” when his 1930 arrival was from the Philippine Islands while they were a U.S. territory.
2. Whether § 8(a)(1) of the Philippine Independence Act of 1934, treating certain Philippine citizens “as if they were aliens” and the Philippines “as if” a foreign country for immigration purposes, could supply the “entry” required by § 19(a).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held Gonzales was not deportable under § 19(a) because he never made an “entry” within the meaning of that provision.
- Gonzales’s 1930 movement from the Philippine Islands to the continental United States was not an “entry” because it was not an arrival from a “foreign port or place.”
- The Philippine Independence Act’s later immigration classification did not create the statutorily required “entry” for purposes of applying § 19(a).

## Legal Principles

- Deportation under § 19(a) for crimes committed “after entry” requires proof of an “entry” as defined by the statute.
- For § 19(a) purposes, an “entry” requires arrival from a “foreign port or place”; movement from a U.S. territory to the continental United States, when the territory is not foreign, does not satisfy that requirement.
- A later statute treating a place “as if” foreign for immigration purposes does not retroactively convert a prior territorial movement into a statutory “entry” needed to trigger deportability under the earlier law.

## Conclusion

Because Gonzales’s 1930 arrival from the Philippine Islands occurred when they were not a foreign place, he made no qualifying “entry” under § 19(a) of the Immigration Act of 1917, and subsequent statutory reclassification could not supply that missing predicate; he therefore could not be deported on the asserted post-entry convictions.


Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637 (1954)