holding that UAP service amounts to membership in a hostile movement
How later courts described this case
- holding that UAP service amounts to membership in a hostile movement
- Immigration officials paid “[c]lose attention . . . to the applicant’s occupation and residence during the war years . . . . Persons who had served in the Ukrainian police or militia would have been ineligible.”
- immigration officials paid “[c]lose attention ... to the applicant’s occupation and residence during the war years and the applicant had the burden under the law of proving eligibility for a visa. Persons who had served in the Ukrainian police or militia would have been ineligible.”
- DPC employee from 1948 to 1952 testified that applicant who served in the Ukrainian Schulzmannschaft would have been rejected
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUNTER, Circuit Judge,
with whom Judge Mansmann joins, dissenting:
I believe that the government did not meet its burden in this case. Accordingly, I concur in Chief Judge Aldisert’s dissent and would reverse and remand with direction to enter judgment for appellant.
I join the Chief Judge’s discussion in Parts V through IX which, in our view, clearly and fully disposes of the case. Therefore, I would not reach the due process grounds.