ment was taken in connection with respondent's pending petition for naturalization. He stated that he had been a member of the Communist Party from 1928 until December 1934 or January 1935. He stated that he had not been a member of the Communist Party since 1935.

Exhibit 4 is a statement in affidavit form made by respondent on May 9, 1944. In this signed and sworn affidavit, respondent states that he has been duly sworn and duly advised by the naturalization examiner that any statement he makes may be used against him by the United States Government in any civil or criminal proceeding, and that he makes this voluntary statement of his own free will and consent. In this statement, he declared that he was a party member from 1928 to 1931. In part, his statement reads as follows:

I broke away from the Communist Party in 1931 because I did not think they followed the communistic theories implicitly and completely. I have read the writing of Karl Marx and other Communist writers and believe that most of their theories of government are good. I still believe in most communistic principles. However, I do not believe that the United States Government is a bad Government although there is room for improvement. Some of the principles of communism should be tried here.

Exhibit 5 is the respondent's alien registration Form AR-2 signed and sworn on December 4, 1940. Question 10 on this form is: "I am, or have been within the past 5 years, or intend to be engaged in the following activities: In addition to other information, list membership or activities in clubs, organizations, or societies." Respondent's answer to this question was, "Former member of Conmunist Party since 1935-and left in the middle of 1938. Member of International Workers Order since 1936 to present."

In his brief, counsel objected to the receipt in evidence of respondent's alien registration form, claiming that all aliens had been assured that the information supplied by them in the alien registration would not be used against them under any and all circumstances. The only restriction contained in the law against the use of the registration records is the following:

Section 34 (b). All registration and fingerprint records made under the provisions of this title shall be secret and confidential, and shall be made available only to such persons or agencies as may be designated by the Commissioner, with the approval of the Attorney General (8 U. S. C. 455).

Furthermore severe penalties were prescribed for failure or refusal to register; also for the giving of statements known to be false (8 U. S. C. 457), and numerous prosecutions have been had for such violations. (U. S. v. Doshen, 133 F. (2d) 757 (C. C. A. 3., 1943); U. S. v. Ausneier, 152 F. (2d) 349 (C. C. A. 2, 1945); U. S. v. Gancy, 54 F. Supp. 755 (D. C., 1944), aff'd 149 F. (2d) 788, cert. den., 66 S. Ct. 166, 326 U. S. 767, 90 L. Ed. 463, rch. den., 66 S. Ct. 229,

326 U. S. 810, 90 L. Ed. 495; U. S. v. Macke, 159 F. (2d) 673 (C. C. A. 2, 1947), cert. den., 67 S. Ct. 1201, 331 U. S. 810, 91 L. Ed. 1830). It is our opinion that the information supplied by the alien registration forms in the possession of the Government may be used by the Government for official purposes and in the public interest. If the information supplied cannot be so used, there would have been no object in that vast undertaking directed by the Alien Registration Act.

Exhibit 2 is the respondent's signed and sworn statement of August 15, 1949, in which respondent states that he was a member of the Comunist Party, from 1930 to 1931.

Under the Internal Security Act of 1950, it is not longer necessary for the Government to establish that the Communist Party is one advocating the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. Under that act, section 1 (2) (C), membership in or affiliation with Communist Party, specifically and by name, is made grounds for exclusion or deportation. In the instant case, the Government did not introduce evidence to show that the Communist Party is an organization advocating the overthrow of the Government by force or violence. For that reason, the charges contained in the warrant of arrest were not sustained.

In our opinion, the record contains adequate evidence that respondent has been a member of the Communist Party of the United States. The specific dates of his membership are unimportant. He is deportable under the Internal Security Act of 1950.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

260397-54- -32

IN THE MATTER OF K

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-1370090

Decided by Board September 14, 1951

"Good moral character"-Requisite for eligibility for relief from deportation— Section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended.

An alien, seeking to adjust his immigration status here under Sec. 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended, to enable him to bring his wife from abroad to reside with him here, is found under the circumstances not to have established that he was a person of good moral character for the required statutory period of five years, in view of the adulterous relationship he had maintained here during this period with a woman other than his wife, such lapses from common standards of morality being casual, concupiscent, promiscuous, and adulterous.

CHARGE:

Warrant: Act of 1924-Remained longer.

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: This is an appeal from an order entered by the Acting Assistant Commissioner on March 26, 1951, directing the deportation of the above-captioned alien from the United States on the charge set forth in the warrant of arrest. Counsel's exceptions are directed to the denial of discretionary relief. Deportability is not at issue.

The respondent, a native of the Island of Syme, Dodecanese Islands, of Greek descent, male, now 61 years of age, last entered the United States as a seaman on December 16, 1926, at the port of Baltimore, Md. A warrant for his arrest on the charge that he had remained longer than permitted by the Immigration Act of 1924 was issued December 8, 1931. He has been under immigration proceedings since that time.

The respondent has filed formal application for suspension of deportation under the provisions of section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended. He has resided in this country since 1926. He owns and operates a restaurant, earning approximately $40 to $50 a week. His assets consist of the business goodwill and fixtures valued at $2,000, together with cash in the bank amounting

to $3,500, a $500 appearance bond and approximately $300 in war bonds. He supports his wife and children who are residing in Egypt.

Respondent has no criminal record, as evidenced by reports from local police authorities and from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He presented affidavits of two United States citizens attesting to his good moral character. An independent investigation conducted by officers of the Service developed nothing derogatory as to his character or loyalty to the Government of the United States.

The respondent's application for discretionary relief presents only one problem. The evidence establishes that he now resides alone but his testimony indicates that he maintained an apartment with one Mrs. GN for approximately 13 months until December 1947. During that time the parties indulged in sexual relationships with each other. The intimate relations commenced several years prior to their maintaining a single apartment. The Acting Assistant Commissioner finds that the respondent has not established good moral character requisite for suspension of deportation by reason of the adulterous relationship referred to above.

Two points are urged in counsel's brief filed in behalf of the respondent. (1) The Government's laches should redound to the benefit of the alien on all doubtful questions. (2) The alien has proved good moral character for the 5 years preceding the hearing of February 6, 1950. No authorities have been cited by counsel in support of the first point. Authorities cited in support of the second will be considered hereinafter.

We concede that the proceedings herein have been pending for approximately 20 years. Respondent was originally ordered deported to Egypt at Government expense on September 1, 1932. The Egyptian authorities refused to grant travel documents for the reason that he was of Greek origin. The original order was amended November 14, 1932, to provide for his deportation to Greece. The Greek authorities, however, refused to issue a passport on the ground that he was not registered in the community claimed by him. He was released on his own recognizance to depart voluntarily or reship foreign under the warrant of deportation on November 22, 1932. The State Department continued its effort to secure travel documents throughout the year 1933 but was not successful.

Soon after the cessation of hostilities in Europe (World War II, June 1945) efforts were resumed to deport the respondent. It appears that he was again taken into custody. A memorandum in the form of a motion to reopen was filed in his behalf by Attorney Albert L. Singer on August 21, 1945. His deportation was stayed for 30 days pending action on the motion. This Board on August 27, 1945, granted the motion to reopen and directed the withdrawal of the outstanding

order and warrant of deportation. Thereafter voluntary departure and preexamination were authorized but the respondent was unable to avail himself of those privileges. The proceeding was ordered reopened on March 23, 1949, to permit him to apply for suspension of deportation under the 1948 amendment to section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917. The case is now before us pursuant to this order. Deportation is the exercise of a right existing in all sovereign governments to say whom of aliens they will allow to remain in their borders. The Immigration Act of 1924 places no limitation on this right. Since 1945 the respondent has been allowed to remain as an act of grace to permit him an opportunity to pursue administratively his request for discretionary relief. Prior to 1945 circumstances beyond the control of the sovereign prevented his removal from our borders. Under the circumstances, we see no basis for counsel's argument that the laches of the Government should redound to the benefit of the alien on the doubtful questions at issue for the apparent reason that there has been no laches. Furthermore, the great weight of authority is to the effect that the equitable doctrine of laches does not run against the Government, (U. S. v. Dalles Military Road Co., 140 U. S. 599, 632, 35 L. Ed. 560-571 (May 25, 1891), and cases cited therein).

The Acting Assistant Commissioner finds that the adultery committed by the respondent within the 5 years immediately preceding his application for discretionary relief automatically precludes a finding of good moral character as required by section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended. This is the sole issue before us because in other respects it appears that the respondent meets the statutory requirements for the discretionary relief he seeks. This Board in Matter of O-, A-3889600, 2, I. & N. Dec. 840 (A. G. Dec. 18, 1947), discussed fully its views regarding the relation between adultery and good moral character under section 19 (c) of the 1917 act. We said in that case, “*** adultery may evidence lack of good moral character but *** it does not under all circumstances necessarily require such a finding *** a man's character is the sum total of what he has done and should not be based upon one phase of a man's life."

1

We supported our position with factual resumes of some 10 cases 1

1

1 Matter of L, A-5643477 (approved Attorney General, September 11, 1946); Matter of JW—J—, A-3192373 (approved Attorney General, June 17, 1947); Matter of D—P—, A-4514630 (approved Acting Attorney General, August 15, 1947); Matter of B- 56130/885 (November 23, 1943); Matter of A-4359810 (March 14, 1947); Matter of P, A-5946976 (March 20, 1947); Matter of F—, (now D- —), A-5444981 (C. O., July 30, 1946); Matter of B, J, M- and J, discussed in Petitions of Rudder et al., 159

H

F. (2d) 695 (C. C. A. 2, January 27, 1947).