Hansen

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is a citizen of Denmark, and has been ordered deported from the United States on the ground that she entered for an immoral purpose, contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act of February 5,1917 (8 US CA § 136), which provides that aliens who enter the United States for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, shall be excluded.

Appellant first came to the United States in 1922 and made her home in Los Angeles, Cal., where she was employed as a domestic servant. It appears from the record that in 1924 she became acquainted with one Bolinger, a married man, in Los Angeles, and in 1025 she commenced to have illicit relations with him. In 1926 she made a trip to Denmark, returning here in 1928. In May, 1931, she made another trip to Europe, on which she was accompanied by Bolinger. On this trip they continued their illicit relations and traveled together, for at least a part of the time, as husband and wife. They returned here together on September 6, 1931, and entered at the port of Seattle, Wash., where they registered at a hotel as husband and wife.

At a…

(dissenting).

Appellant is ordered to be deported as an alien excluded by law. Act of Eeb. 5, 1917, e. 29, § 19, 39 Stat. 889 , 8 USCA § 155. I cannot concur in the contention that she entered this country for an “immoral purpose’’ w’tliin the meaning of section 3 of the Act of Eeb. 5. 1917 ( 39 Stat. 875 , 8 USCA § 136 (g), which excluded “prostitutes, or person? coming into the United States for the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose. * * * ”

1. On this record appellant could not be found to have been, or to have intended to he, a concubine or mistress, even though it could be found therefrom that in returning from abroad to her residence in Los Angeles she intended to have sexual relations with her companion until their arrival and even occasionally thereafter.

The question for determination is whether or not such extramarital relations, despite the social and moral opprobrium that attaches thereto, are included within the phrase “any other immoral purpose,” as used in this statute. Clearly here as in United States v. Bitty, 208 U. S. 393 , page 402, 28 S. Ct. 396, 398 , 52 L. Ed. 543 (1908), where a similar phrase in the Immigration Act of 1907 was…