Matter of SS. Lionne (Board decision, April 18, 1958)

Matter of SS. Lionne (BIA ID 0961): Board retains stowaway detention fine but remits manifest fine

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
ID 0961, BAL-10/145-6
Decided
April 18, 1958
Outcome
Mixed result
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-19

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 1958, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1958
The immigration statutes and regulations may have been amended, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Final BIA decision
The Board sustained the appeal as to the $10 manifest penalty and dismissed it as to the $1,000 detention penalty. This published precedent records the final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BIA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: BIA released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (justice.gov)

Plain-English summary

A stowaway boarded a vessel in Mexico and was discovered after reaching the United States. The vessel's master and agents appealed a $1,000 fine for failing to detain him aboard and a $10 fine for failing to list him on a manifest. The Board found that they did not know he was aboard, but knowledge was not required for the detention fine. It held that the manifest fine did require knowledge of his presence, remitted that $10, and left the $1,000 fine in place.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: Sections 231(d) and 273(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  • Outcome: $10 manifest fine remitted; $1,000 detention fine affirmed.
  • Key point: Lack of knowledge of a stowaway defeats the manifest fine but does not defeat the detention fine.

Full text (BIA official public release)

[PAGE 1 / printed 19]

MATTER OF SS. LIONNE

In FINE Proceedings

BAL-10/145-6

Decided by Board April 18, 1958

Fine—No liability under section 231(d) for failure to furnish manifest where responsible parties had no knowledge of stowaway's presence on vessel.

Fine liability under section 231(d) of the 1952 act is not incurred for failure to furnish manifest for alien stowaway whose presence aboard vessel had not been known to responsible parties until after stowaway's apprehension in the United States.

Editor's Note: Matter of SS. Monte Monjuich, 5 I. & N. Dec. 801, overruled, in part—with respect to liability for fine under section 231(d) of the 1952 act.

BASIS FOR FINE: Act of 1952—Section 231(d) (8 U.S.C. 1221) and Section 273(d) (8 U.S.C. 1323).

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: The appeals in these cases are directed to two administrative penalties totaling $1,010 which have been ordered imposed on the vessel's master and/or the Hinkins Steamship Company, its agents. $1,000 of the penalty has been ordered imposed for failure to detain the alien stowaway, A——C——M——, aboard the vessel until he had been inspected by an immigration officer; and $10 of the penalty has been ordered imposed for failure to deliver a manifest as to him. The appeal will be dismissed as to the former penalty and sustained as to the latter.

The facts of this case have been succinctly set forth in the opinion of the District Director at Baltimore, Maryland, and need not be repeated here in their entirety. Briefly, the stowaway was apprehended by local police officers and turned over to Service officials; he testified that he boarded this vessel at Vera Cruz, Mexico, as a longshoreman engaged in loading the vessel and remained aboard; that he hid in the number 3 cargo hold during the voyage to Baltimore and subsisted by eating pineapples from the cargo in the hold, and left his place of concealment three times late at night to get water from a faucet on the main deck; and his testimony was verified in its substantial portions by an investigation conducted aboard the vessel by Service officers at New York. The

[PAGE 2 / printed 20]

evidence of record clearly overrides the master's claims that the alien could not possibly have stowed away aboard his vessel.

We are satisfied from the evidence of record that the responsible parties did not know of the stowaway's presence aboard the vessel until after he had been apprehended ashore, but knowledge is not an element essential to liability to fine under section 273(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This Board has consistently held that a transportation company is liable for fine under this section of law for failure to detain on board alien stowaways until they have been inspected by immigration officers, and that such fine liability exists even though the line had no knowledge of the stowaway being aboard the ship until the discovery of the stowaway in the United States. We so hold here. Also, there is no provision for mitigation of the penalty under this section of the law. Therefore, the $1,000 portion of the penalty ordered imposed here must be permitted to stand.

However, it is our considered opinion that liability to fine under section 231(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for failure to deliver to immigration officers at the port of arrival a manifest containing the stowaway's name presupposes knowledge of the stowaway's presence aboard the vessel. We so hold and, therefore, it follows that the $10 portion of the penalty has been improperly imposed in this instance. Therefore, that portion of the fine will be remitted.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained as to the penalty ordered imposed under section 231(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and that said $10 fine be remitted, and that the appeal be dismissed as to the penalty ordered imposed under section 273(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The penalty permitted to stand in this case will be $1,000.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace