ing his claim that he was a neutral alien. Such application under 50 U. S. C. 303 operated to bar him from becoming a citizen of the United States. Under 32 C. F. R. 611.13, an alien who was not a member of a class specifically exempted, to which the respondent makes no claim, and who was in the United States after May 16, 1942, or for more than 3 months after the date of his entry, whichever is the later, is declared to be residing in the United States within the meaning of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. Prima facie, therefore, he was liable to serve, and on November 4, 1942, he asserted his status as a neutral alien as basis of his application for relief from such liability. The fact that for the purpose of the immigration laws he was accorded the status of a temporary visitor is, in my opinion, beside the point. I believe that so much of our order of April 6, 1951, which grants the respondent the privilege of preexamination should be withdrawn. In accordance with the provisions of Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 90.12 (c) this case is certified to the Attorney General for review of this Board's decision. BEFORE THE ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL (September 11, 1951) The decision and order of the majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated August 2, 1951, are hereby disapproved. IN THE MATTER OF G In EXCLUSION Proceedings A-7367905 Decided by Central Office February 28, 1950 Decided by Board May 3, 1950 Crime involving moral turpitude-Putting false money into circulation in violation of sections 146 and 147 of the German Criminal Code. The offense of putting false money into circulation in violation of Sections 146 and 147 of the German Criminal Code involves moral turpitude (conviction by United States Military Court,* Munich, Germany, August 11, 1949) EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY: Act of 1917-Convicted crime involving moral turpitude, to wit: BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE (February 28, 1950) Discussion: Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of fact and conclusions of law entered by the board of special inquiry October 24, 1949, and personally served upon appellant and his representative overseas are hereby adopted with the following modifications: Finding of Fact No. 5 is deleted and Finding of Fact No. 6 is renumbered Finding of Fact No. 5 and amended to read as follows: (5) That you were convicted by the United States Military Government Court for Germany, District Court for the Eighth Judicial District, at Munich, Germany, August 11, 1949, on a plea of not guilty to violation of Ordinance No. 1, * Editor's note.-That the B. I. A. has no authority to reverse such a court's findings was noted in unreported Matter of K-——, A-7427459, B. I. A. 9–8–50. To like effect as the language used by the B. I. A. in the above Interim Decision in the penultimate paragraph of its decision of 5-3-50, is the language in unreported Matter of D—, A-7394992, B. I. A. 7-24-50. Theft in violation of Military Government Ordinance No. 1, Article 1, Section 19 (conviction by military government court April 1946 for stealing property of the Allied Forces was held to involve moral turpitude (unreported Matter of S-, A-7356187, C. O. December 30, 1949, B. I. A. February 10, 1950.)) Article 2, Section 27 (Possession of any currency, having reason to believe it to be false or altered) and violation of Sections 146, 147 of the German Criminal Code (Putting false money into circulation). Appellant's delay in reporting to the board of special inquiry for a hearing to determine his admissibility into the United States, because he was in jail from June 5, 1949, until September 26, 1949, is not relevant to the issue. Appellant was not convicted on a plea of guilty and it is not otherwise shown by the record that he admits the commission of the offenses for which he was convicted although he does admit that he was so convicted. Representative overseas excepts to the excluding order (1) on the ground that appellant was incarcerated an unduly length of time before being brought to trial on the charges for which he was convicted; (2) that appellant at the trial was not represented by an attorney of his own choosing; and (3) that the evidence upon which appellant was convicted does not warrant the conclusion that the offense involves moral turpitude. The first two issues raised by counsel are not relevant to the present issue; that is, whether or not this appellant is admissible to the United States. For reasons hereinafter shown the third argument of counsel is untenable. This record relates to a 25-year-old unmarried male, native and citizen of Poland, possibly now stateless, whose name was sent up as a displaced person, June 2, 1949, on the nominal roll from Munich, Germany. He was held for a board of special inquiry at Camp Grohn, Bremen, Germany, and on October 24, 1949, he was excluded from admission on the ground stated above. Appellant is remaining in the displaced persons camp pending decision on appeal. Polish quota immigration visa was issued to this appellant at Munich, Germany, May 26, 1949, under section 3 (a) 6 (a) of the Displaced Persons Act approved June 25, 1948 (P. L. 774). The Department of State has waived passport requirements. Exhibit A shows that this appellant was brought to trial before a United States Military Government Court for Germany (District Court for the Eighth Judicial District) at Munich, August 11, 1949, on two charges: (1) Violation of Ordinance No. 1, article 2, section 27 (Possession of any currency, having reason to believe it to be false or altered) and (2) Violation of sections 146, 147 of the German Criminal Code (Putting false money into circulation). The bill of complaint or indictment alleged that this appellant gave a United States banknote which had been "raised" from $1 to $50, to another with instruction to the latter to sell it. Appellant pleaded "not guilty." At the trial, however, appellant admitted finding the banknote shortly after military police had raided a place in Moehlstrasse (Moehl Street) Munich, Germany, and "knowing good money, as well as bad money, was alleged to have been thrown away during the raid" (presumably in an excited attempt to destroy evidence) he took the banknote to a jeweler for appraisal. The latter could not recall having seen a picture of George Washington on a $50 banknote but otherwise thought the paper on which the banknote was printed was genuine. It was quite apparent to the Court that the banknote had been "raised" and since the alteration was so poorly done, concluded that any reasonably experienced person could see that the banknote had been altered and found this appellant guilty of count 1 of the indictment; that is, for possession of currency, having reason to believe it to be false or that it had been altered. The person to whom this appellant is alleged to have given this banknote with instruction to sell it appeared at the trial against this appellant as a witness for the Government. At the trial this appellant denied the allegation in count 2 of the indictment claiming that he gave the banknote to the witness because he (appellant) was about to leave for America. Appellant having admitted giving the banknote to the witness and since it did not appear to the Court that this appellant could afford to "give" so large a sum, and since the purpose for which the banknote is "passed" under the applicable German statute is not material, the trial court also found this appellant guilty of the second count of the indictment, that is, putting false money into circulation in violation of sections 146, 147 of the German Criminal Code. Sentence of 4 months in jail on both counts to begin as of June 3, 1949, was to run concurrently. Major and minor crimes involving currency in Germany are covered by chapter 8, sections 146 to 152 inclusive, of the German Criminal Code. Sections 146-147, of the German Criminal Code, violations of which this appellant was specifically charged, relate to counterfeiting and false altering of money (sec. 146) and putting forged or altered money into circulation (sec. 147). Section 146 of the German Criminal Code reads as follows: Whoever counterfeits any German or foreign coin or paper money with the intention of using the same as genuine or otherwise putting it into circulation, and whoever with the like intention gives to genuine money, by alteration, the appearance of money of a higher value or to money withdrawn from circulation the appearance of money still current, shall be punished by confinement in a penitentiary for not less than two years; police surveillance may also be imposed. If there are extenuating circumstances, the punishment shall be imprisonment. Section 147 of the German Criminal Code reads as follows: Whoever counterfeits or falsely alters money without the intention of putting it into circulation as genuine but thereafter does so, as well as whoever procures counterfeit or falsely altered money and puts it into circulation, or imports counterfeit or falsely altered money from abroad for the purpose of passing it, shall be punished by a like penalty. The gist of the offenses for which this appellant was convicted is the possession and "passing" of "altered" currency knowing or having reason to believe that the currency was false or altered. Possessing and passing counterfeit governmental obligations knowing the same to be counterfeit have been held to be crimes involving moral turpitude. U. S. ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422 (1933); U. S. ex rel. Allessio v. Day, 42 F. (2d) 217 (C. C. A. 2, 1930); U. S. ex rel. Guarino v. Uhl, 27 F. Supp. 135 (1939), reversed on other grounds, 107 F. (2d) 399 (C. C. A. 2, 1939); Matter of K——, A-5526604, B. I. A. (July 5, 1941). It is also a criminal offense to materially alter or debase, with intent to defraud a governmental obligation or security. U. S. v. Sacks, 257 U. S. 37 (1921); U. S. v. Janowitz, et al., 257 U. S. 42 (1921), 42 S. Ct. 40. "Raising," either by chemicals or the "scratch process" the denomination of a governmental obligation is an alteration or debasement. Foster v. U. S., 76 F. (2d) 183 (C. C. A. 10, 1935). The "passing" of an obligation altered by another knowing the same to have been so altered has been held to be a crime involving moral turpitude. Matter of C, 56010/916 Board of Review (July 17, 1939). On the basis of the evidence the conclusion is justified that this appellant is inadmissible to the United States on the criminal ground urged above. This appellant has no residence in the United States upon which to invoke discretionary relief. Recommendation: It is recommended that the excluding decision of the Board of Special Inquiry be affirmed. BEFORE THE BOARD (May 3, 1950) Discussion: The appellant, a native and citizen of Poland, 26 years of age, male, single, applied for admission to the United States as a displaced person under the provisions of Public Law 774. He was accorded a hearing before a board of special inquiry held at Bremen, Germany, on September 26 and October 24, 1949. The appellant was in possession of a Polish quota immigration visa issued by the United States vice consul at Munich, Germany, on May 26, 1949. It is noted on his visa that the passport requirements were waived by the Secretary of State on September 28, 1948. The board of special inquiry found the appellant inadmissible to the United States on the ground designated above and on February 28, 1950, |