Page images
PDF
EPUB

The respondent barely meets the residence requirements for suspension of deportation. He has no close relatives in the United States and there is no one in this country dependent upon him for support. He deserted an allied vessel in time of war when the services of seamen were sorely needed by the allies. We feel that the circumstances in this case do not warrant the exercise of the discretionary relief of suspension of deportation. Accordingly, we will dismiss the appeal. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

IN THE MATTER OF M

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-7890480

Decided by Board August 1, 1952

Suspension of Deportation, economic detriment-Section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended-Exercise of discretion.

(1) The exercise of the discretionary power to grant suspension of deportation pursuant to section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, is not warranted in the case of natives and citizens of Canada, a family group consisting of alien wife/mother and four alien minor children, who have relatively short period of residence in the United States, are residing near Canadian border and are eligible for nonquota status under section 4 (a) or 4 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924, even though a citizen husband/father and a citizen minor child are part of such family.

CHARGES:

Warrant: Act of 1924-No immigration visa (all aliens).
Act of 1918-No passport (minor aliens).

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: The cases come forward on appeal from the decision dated February 11, 1952, of the Acting Assistant Commissioner, denying suspension of deportation and granting voluntary departure in lieu of deportation as the maximum relief warranted by the circumstances of the cases.

The only issue before us is whether any greater discretionary relief than that of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation is justified. The respondents constitute a family group consisting of the mother, 33 years old, and her 4 minor children, age 11, 10, 8, and 7 years, respectively, all natives and citizens of Canada. The mother has resided in the United States since June 1947, and last entered after a brief absence in Canada about July 31, 1949, when she was accompanied by the minor respondent, T. The other three minor respondents have resided in the United States since December 31, 1948. The citizen family ties in this case are represented by the husbandfather, a native-born citizen of the United States, born in Kentucky in 1901, and a resident of Canada from 1906 or 1907 until 1945. However, he appears to have committed no act which would have resulted

in loss of his United States citizenship. In addition, there is another minor child, a native-born citizen of the United States. The wife and children are wholly dependent upon the husband-father who earns approximately $85 a week. There are no assets except for the equity in the home of which they live. The respondents have no criminal records, and an independent character investigation may be regarded as favorable.

The record therefore presents a situation of relatively short residence in the United States and a family situation consisting of a husband-father and a citizen minor child as compared to an alien wifemother and four alien minor children. The aliens are eligible for nonquota status either under section 4 (a) or 4 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1924. In addition, they are residing near the Canadian border. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the discretionary relief of suspension of deportation does not appear to be warranted, and the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation is the maximum relief justified. Accordingly, since they have already been granted this form of discretionary relief, we shall dismiss the appeal. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

IN THE MATTER OF C C▬▬▬▬▬▬

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

1512-1991

1500-41974

Decided by Board August 1, 1952

Suspension of deportation, economic detriment-Section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended-Exercise of discretion.

(1) The exercise of the discretionary power to grant suspension of deportation pursuant to section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, is not warranted in the case of alien parents, natives, and citizens of Mexico, who entered illegally and have been residing in the United States only since 1949, even though they have two native-born minor citizen children.

CHARGES:

Warrant: Act of 1924-No immigration visas (both).

Act of 1917-Entered at other than a designated port (both),
Act of 1918-No passport (both).

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: This matter is before us by reason of an appeal from the decision of the hearing officer, which decision is undated, and wherein the aliens have been granted permission to depart from the United States without an order of deportation outstanding and without expense to the Government. It was further ordered that in the event that they failed to so depart within a period of 60 days, that deportation be effected pursuant to law.

The male alien testified that he was born in Mexico on January 22, 1921, and the female stated that she was born in the same country on July 28, 1928. They are both citizens of Mexico. Both parties stated that they last entered the United States on or about October 31, 1949, near Presidio, Tex., having waded the Rio Grande. On that occasion they entered to reside here and neither was in possession of an unexpired immigration visa as required under section 13 of the act of 1924 and both entered the United States at other than a place designated as a place of entry for aliens, contrary to the provisions of the act of 1917. Nor were these people in possession of valid passports as required under the so-called Passport Act of 1918.

That these aliens are subject to deportation is established adequately by the evidence of record (8 U. S. C. secs. 155, 213 and Executive Order 8766).

Suspension of deportation is being sought because of a serious economic detriment which would obtain to two children born to this couple in the United States.

The male alien after coming to the United States leased 25 acres of land on which he is raising cotton and he expects from the harvest of this cotton crop that he should realize some $2,000 over and above his debts. His other assets consist of an automobile, household goods and personal effects of the approximate value of $750. He has no cash assets. His debts amount to some $500. Aside from the two United States born children the only other person in the United States is a half brother and sister of the male appellant.

These persons have been in the United States only since 1949. Counsel in his brief directs our attention to the fact that this male alien is the lessor of 25 acres of land which he has planted and from which he expects to realize some $2,000. He also calls attention to the other assets hereinabove listed and asserts that the foregoing facts remove the male alien from the category of a laborer and farm hand to the class of those who aspire to own their own property.

The alien has established good moral character and for that reason he was given permission to depart from the United States in order that he might obtain an immigration visa from the American consul in Mexico. The same privilege was accorded the wife. Ample time has been given both of them within which to depart from this country and in the event additional time is required an application therefor could be made by motion to the Service.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and it is our conclusion that the maximum relief in this case has already been granted.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal from the decision of the hearing officer be and the same is hereby dismissed.

« PreviousContinue »