## Facts

- Stjepan Bozo Carija, his wife, and their two children were natives and citizens of Yugoslavia.
- On July 30, 1946, the family entered the United States on nonimmigrant visas “for travel to and through the United States” while en route to Paraguay, using passports issued by a Paraguayan consular officer.
- Their initial period of authorized stay (originally 60 days) was extended to March 31, 1947, but they remained in the United States after that date.
- While in the United States, they concluded that Paraguay had become unsuitable for the family’s domicile; Paraguay later erupted into rebellion.
- In October 1947, the Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings based on their overstay.
- After Congress enacted the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (DPA), the family applied “immediately” for adjustment of status under DPA § 4.
- In a pretrial statement, the family admitted that at entry they had a dual intent: to continue in transit to another country and also to remain in the United States permanently if they were permitted to do so lawfully.
- The Attorney General denied the adjustment applications solely on the theory that their entries were “unlawful” because they had an intention at entry to remain permanently in the United States.
- The family filed a declaratory-judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court granted summary judgment for the family, and the Attorney General appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an alien’s admission on nonimmigrant transit visas is “unlawful” for DPA § 4 adjustment purposes solely because, at entry, the alien also desired to remain in the United States permanently if lawful means later became available.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit modified and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for the family.
- The court held that the family’s entries were not “unlawful” merely because they had a conditional desire to remain permanently in the United States if permitted to do so lawfully.
- Because the Attorney General’s denial rested only on that legal premise (and not on fraud, misrepresentation, or another defect in the entry), the denial could not stand on the stated ground.

## Legal Principles

- A procedurally lawful nonimmigrant transit entry is not rendered “unlawful” solely by an entrant’s dual or conditional intent to remain permanently if lawful authority later permits it.
- The relevant distinction is between (a) an intent to remain permanently regardless of law or by deceit and (b) a desire to remain only if lawful channels open; only the former suggests an unlawful entry based on intent.
- Where the government admits that denial of statutory relief turned exclusively on a legal characterization of undisputed facts, a court may resolve the case on summary judgment because the dispute is one of law, not fact.
- In applying DPA § 4, an agency may not add a categorical bar that treats a lawfully admitted nonimmigrant as having entered unlawfully based only on a contingent hope to stay permanently.

## Conclusion

Brownell v. Carija holds that the Attorney General could not treat the Carija family’s 1946 transit-visa admissions as “unlawful” under DPA § 4 merely because they hoped to remain in the United States permanently if the law later allowed it, so the D.C. Circuit affirmed (with a modification in form) summary judgment for the family in their declaratory-judgment action.


Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78 (1957)