Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:00:29.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Jurisdiction—over aliens abroad—admission of aliens—visa control—false statements under oath in visa application made abroad—protectiveprinciple of international criminal jurisdiction—objectiveterritorial principle of international criminal jurisdiction distinguished

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 386 F.2d 155, 157.

1 18 U.S.C. §1546 provides: Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other entry documents … Whoever knowingly makes under oath any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document containing any such false statement— Shall be fined not more than$2,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (Footnote by court. Footnotes omitted unless otherwise indicated.) 2 Judge Medina noted that courts have rarely reached the issue of jurisdiction, an exception being United States v. Baker, 136 F.Supp. 546 (S.D.N.Y., 1955), in which jurisdiction was denied.

3 U. S. Constitution, Art. I, § 8.

4 Judge Medina defined the protective principle of jurisdiction in the terms used in Restatement (Second) Foreign Relations Law, Section 33 (1965): a state “has jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of law attaching legal consequences to conduct outside its territory that threatens its security as a state or the operation of its governmental functions, provided the conduct is generally recognized as a crime under the law of states that have reasonably developed legal systems.“

5 Eocha v. United States, 288 F.2d 545 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 366 TT. S. 948, 81 S.Ct. 1902, 6 L. Ed.2d 1241 (1961) (footnote by court).

6 388 F.2d 8 at 10-11.