application for the suspension of deportation pursuant to the provisions of section 20c of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (act of June 28, 1940, U. S. C., title 8, sec. 155), which authorizes the Attorney General to suspend and, in the absence of affirmative action to the contrary, during the next regular session of Congress succeeding such order of suspension, to cancel deportation proceedings against certain aliens whose deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien. On July 27, 1944, the Attorney General of the United States wrote to the chairman of your committee. His letter in part states: "You requested information as to the status of the proceedings against Frieda Schiffer. I take pleasure in informing you that pursuant to the authority conferred on me by title II of the act of June 28, 1940 (54 Stat. 671; 8 U. S. C. 155c), I suspended deportation of this case. "In accordance with the requirement of the statute, the case was reported by me to the Congress on July 1, 1944." Therefore, it is the opinion of your committee that the refund of $500 should be made to Mr. Schiffer. Your committee recommends favorable consideration to the proposed legislation. Appended hereto is the report of the Attorney General of the United States, together with other pertinent information. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This acknowledges your letter of March 4, 1942, requesting my views relative to a bill (H. R. 4801) to provide for the reimbursement to Hyman L. Schiffer for the loss of the sum of $500 sustained by him as the result of the forfeiture of a hond given by him as surety and conditioned on the departure from the United States of his cousin, Frieda Schiffer, an alien. It appears from the files of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of this Department that Frieda Schiffer, whose married name is Bellhorn, is 28 years of age and is a native of Germany and a citizen of Poland. She arrived in the United States on September 28, 1938, and upon filing a departure bond in the sum of $500 on which the claimant was surety, was admitted to the United States as a temporary visitor for a period of 15 days. Various extensions were granted to her from time to time with the consent of the surety. The last extension expired on August 6, 1939. She failed to leave the United States on that date and on September 7, 1939, a warrant was issued for her arrest. She was appre hended by an immigrant inspector promptly thereafter. On October 6, 1939, she was found to be deportable and an order was entered requiring her to leave the United States on or before December 1, 1939. The departure bond was forfeited on March 13, 1940, and on April 12, 1940, the amount of the bond was paid into the Treasury of the United States. On May 29, 1941, the alien was married to Hans Bellhorn, who is a native of Germany and a legal resident of the United States. Deportation proceedings against Mrs. Bellhorn have been reopened for the purpose of reconsidering her application for the suspension of deportation pursuant to the provisions of section 20c of the Alien Registration Act of 1940 (act of June 28, 1940, U. S. C. title 8, sec. 155), which authorizes the Attorney General to suspend and, in the absence of affirmative action to the contrary, during the next regular session of Congress succeeding such order of suspension, to cancel deportation proceedings against certain aliens whose deportation would result in serious economic detriment to a citizen or legally resident alien who is the spouse, parent, or minor child of such deportable alien. The purpose of the bill under consideration is to reimburse the claimant, who is a resident of Brooklyn, N. Y., for the sum of $500 lost as a result of the forfeiture of the departure bond. An investigation conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service discloses that the claimant's mother, Mrs. Rose Schiffer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., provided the money which was posted as security for the bond and which was forfeited. It is suggested, therefore, if the bill receives favoragle consideration that it be amended by substituting the name of Rose Schiffer for that of Hyman Schiffer, both in line 5 and in the title of the measure. Whether or not the bill if amended as suggested above should be enacted involves a question of legislative policy concerning which I prefer not to make any suggestions. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Hon. DAN R. McGEHEE, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This refers to your oral inquiry relative to the bill (H. R. 299) for the relief of Hyman L. Schiffer, who was surety on a departure bond given by Frieda Schiffer to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. You requested information as to the status of the proceedings against Frieda Schiffer. I take pleasure in informing you that pursuant to the authority conferred on men by title II of the act of June 28, 1940 (54 Stat. 671; 8 U. S. C. 155c). I suspend deportation in this case. In accordance with the requirement of the statute, the case was reported by me to the Congress on July 1, 1944. Sincerely yours. FRANCIS BIDDLE, Attorney General. STATE OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK, County of Kings, ss: Hyman L. Schiffer, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he resides at 90 Maujer Street, in the borough of Brooklyn, city and State of New York. That deponent is making this affidavit for the purpose of having the Committee on Claims act favorably on bill H. R. 4801. That your deponent is extremely desirous of obtaining a release upon a bond in the sum of $500, which deponent executed and filed with the Department of Labor, Immigration and Naturalization Service, for the safe departure of alien, Frieda Schiffer. That deponent is not a professional bondsman, nor has he acted in this capacity before. That the reason deponent filed this bond was because of the fact that the alien is a relative of your deponent. The circumstances which brought about your deponent filing this bond are as follows: On October 1, 1938, I received a letter from this alien informing me that she was being held at Ellis Island for the purpose of deportation. Upon visiting her at Ellis Island, I discovered that she was a second cousin of mine. Up to this time I had no knowledge of her intentions to come to this country. She informed me that she had obtained a visitor's visa and had made reservations at the Wellington Hotel in New York with the expressed purpose of staying in New York for 2 weeks and then visiting her brother in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She also told me that she did not know that a $500 bond was required and had therefor made no preparation to advance this money. She gave me several addresses of relatives and asked me to speak in her behalf to raise this sum of $500. After repeated attempts, the money could not be obtained, and I was compelled to place a bond out of my own funds rather than to have her deported after having arrived in this country. She was then released, after the placing of this bond, but made no effort whatsoever to leave the United States and contact her brother in Argentina. After the lapse of 2 weeks, she made an application with the Department to extend her stay in this country, against my objections. The Department informed me, when these extensions were made that unless she departed voluntarily I would have to consent to these extensions or else forfeit the bond. In the month of June 1939 I again communicated with the Department of Labor at Ellis Island and informed them that I could not remain on the bond because of my financial circumstances, and could not consent to any further extensions. Despite this effort on my part to withdraw from the bond, the Department extended her visitor's visa until September 1939. In September 1939, which was the expiration date of the last extension, the alien made no effort whatsoever to obtain any further extensions and did not appear at the Department of Labor until she was arrested under a warrant issued by the Department. Upon information and belief, a number of hearings were held and she was then released upon a new bond, which was placed with the Department of Labor in her behalf by some person unknown to me. At no time was I requested to appear at these hearings. After her release under this new bond, deponent made repeated efforts to obtain the $500 which deponent had placed as a bond for her voluntary departure. These efforts were carried on for 6 months and deponent was then informed that my bond had been forfeited, but up until the expiration of this 6 months' period the bond was still in effect and had not been forfeited. I was then informed by the Legal Division of the Department of Labor that though there was considerable merit to my case and they were in favor of turning over the $500 to me, they could not do so because of the existing law which prohibited such an act. I was informed by them that my only remedy was to make an application to Congress and have them pass a bill restoring the bond to me. My bond had been forfeited despite the fact that I had refused to consent to any extensions; that I had cooperated with the Department in all their efforts to locate the alien by keeping in constant touch with the alien and forwarding all new addresses to the Department. That on numerous occasions I had contacted the alien and insisted upon her appearing at the Department and to have her depart voluntarily from the country. Wherefore, deponent prays that the Committee on Claims act favorably upon the bill. Sworn to before me this 12th day of March 1942. FEBRUARY 13, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. McGEHEE, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1396] The Committee on Claims to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1396) for the relief of Anne Loacker, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. A similar bill was favorably reported by this committee in the Seventy-eighth Congress. The facts will be found fully set forth in House Report No. 1463 of the Seventy-eighth Congress, which is appended hereto and made a part of this report. (H. Rept. No. 1463, 78th Cong., 2d sess.j The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Civil Service Commission to pay out of any money in the civil service retirement and disability fund, to Anne Loacker, of Spokane, Wash., the widow of Leo G. Loacker, formerly a railway-mail clerk, an annuity equal in amount to the annuity which she would have been entitled to receive had the retirement of the said Leo G. Loacker become effective on November 1, 1941, and had he elected in writing, at the time of such retirement, to receive a reduced annuity equal to such reduced annuity payable after his death to the said Anne Loacker, as surviving beneficiary. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that Leo G. Loacker was a railway postal clerk assigned out of Spokane, Wash., and had reached the age of retirement. This date was apparently at the close of business on October 31, 1941. Under the Retirement Act an employee who makes application for retirement is asked which of the two plans he prefers. There is the regular retirement and also the survivorship plan, where if accepted the annuities are divided between the wife and her husband. The law requires the retiring person to make application for the survivorship plan if he desires it and he is then furnished a statement of just how much each will draw in annuities. He must sign a statement that he desires or rejects this plan. Mr. Loacker, according to the record, made, through the proper channels, application for retirement on August 11, 1941, as he was due to officially retire on November 1, 1941. In the annuity application in answer to the question with respect to type of annuity desired, Mr. Loacker stated: "Desire to defer election of annuity until I receive information of the amount due under each option." It is apparent that the application for annuity, including the questions relating to option, was sent to the Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service on August 5, 1941, but was not forwarded to the Commission until October 31, 1941, at the time of certification to the Commission of the retirement account, as shown in the Post Office Department records, a necessary proceeding in the settlement of an annuity account. It is further noted that nothing further was heard from this matter until on December 16, 1941, Mrs. Loacker received a letter addressed to Mr. Loacker under date of December 12, 1941, at Washington, D. C., which gave the desired information. Mr. Loacker had been officially retired November 1, 1941, taken to the hospital on November 3, and passed away on December 4, 1941, 8 days before the letter was written him from Washington, 12 days before the letter was actually received by Mrs. Loacker. There are two reports from the Commission on the case in which they state that they had no knowledge that there was any emergency in the case of Mr. Loacker until November 28, 1941, when a letter was received from the chief clerk of the railway mail district advising the Commission of Mr. Loacker's physical condition. They stated it takes a lot of time to compile the information and to give the information which was requested. They admit that perhaps there was some delay unnecessarily because of the fact that they did not have any knowledge of the emergency and the case was submitted in the regular way and handled as in the usual procedure, but, after the letter describing the condition of Mr. Loacker on November 28, it would have been practically impossible to get the desired information to him so that he could have made a decision before his death on December 4, 1941. The Commission in a letter dated January 31, 1944, states: "The Commission recognizes considerable merit in the relief proposed by H. R. 3659, but without authorization from Congress cannot make an annuity award to Mrs. Loacker. It may be that this is a case where special legislation is warranted and the Commission offers no objection to the bill should Congress decide that enactment of the law is justified.' Therefore, your committee recommends favorable consideration to the proposed Appended hereto is the report of the Civil Service Commission, together with other pertinent evidence. bill. Hon, DAN R. McGEHEE, UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Chairman, Committee on Claims, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. MCGEHEE: Receipt is acknowledged of your communication of January 26, 1944, transmitting copy of H. R. 3659, a bill for the relief of Anne Loacker, and requesting the views of the Commission thereon. The records of the Commission show that Mr. Loacker was separated from the service on account of age, effective at the close of business October 31, 1941. His application for annuity, although dated August 5, 1941, was not received in the Commission until November 3, 1941. The Retirement Act states that the benefit allowed thereunder shall be a life annuity terminable upon the death of the annuitant. The law further provides that an employee at the time of his retirement may elect to receive either an increased annuity with forfeiture of individual account upon death or a joint and survivorship annuity. The election of either of the latter types of benefit requires affirmative action on the part of the retired employee, which was not done in this case. In the annuity application in answer to the question with respect to type of annuity desired, Mr. Loacker stated: "Desire to defer election of annuity until I receive information of the amount due under each option." Apparently the application for annuity, including the questions relating to option, was sent to the Superintendent of the Railway Mail Service on August 5, 1941, but was not forwarded to the Commission until October 31, 1941, at the time of certification to the Commission of the retirement account, as shown in the Post Office Department records, a necessary proceeding in the settlement of an annuity account. |