As far as I know, that is possible. The original restriction on married priests was in regards to ordaining married men IN the States. I don’t believe it had anything to do with married priests being licitly transferred here.
Cum episcopo, Cum data fuerit, and especially Ea semper (or “We’ve always done it that way”–the papal bull that established American Orthodoxy) specifically said that Eastern rite priests who intend to go to the USA must be celibate.
This was honored more in the breach.
I forget the details, but if I recall correctly the first ban was against married eastern priests in western Europe, particularly France in the late 19th century. This ruling was extended to include North America shortly afterward but before the end of that decade.
Then came Ea Semper, another ban of married priests, this one very formal and well publicized, in 1907. As you alluded here the number of flights to Orthodoxy continued apace.
I do not know why the ban had to be repeated in Cum Data Fuerit in 1929, but it certainly was. This may be an indication that the earlier bans were being ignored or conveniently forgotten occasionally. (I will just speculate here but it seems certainly possible that the new ban would be viewed by the Vatican as more enforceable considering the fact that the Moscow Patriarchate was under suppression from the Reds, and therefore the Orthodox Metropolia in North America was divided and seemed less of an appealing alternative.)
It is has been said by some that the issuance of Cum Data Fuerit was at the request of the Latin bishops of the United States. I cannot verify that but it has been repeated a lot. I recall reading that the ban was extended to Australia and I only know that because of a news item somewhere within the last decade announcing the Australian bishops conference apologizing to the Eastern Catholics over it. I don’t know how the Melkites or Maronites were affected by all of this.
As has been stated the Ukrainian Catholics got around the ban when they could, just as the original poster here suggested. As I recall the ordinations were considered “valid, but illicit” but not opposed by Rome after the fact.
I should point out that the ban specifically forbade married priests from Europe coming to North America. So this gimmick of going to Europe for ordination was not a loophole, it was a challenging violation. The advantage was that it was less likely to be noticed, not that it was OK somehow.
The tactic is no longer necessary because the Vatican is no longer enforcing this ban and the Ruthenians as well could go back to openly ordaining married men if they wanted to. Kudos to Vladyka John of Parma (my favorite EC bishop) for his efforts. I think the biggest problem now is finding candidates, many people are still unaware that it is now possible to prepare for the priesthood and also date women with alacrity.
[As a side note, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar was made a bishop in a similar manner (in Rome but without Papal permission or notification), by Cardinal Slipyj once he was released from the Gulag. His consecration was probably as a consequence illicit.]
Is brother Irish Melkite lurking here and willing to remove my ignorance of the matter - or anyone else?)
