the summer of 1952. The petitioner advised that he only had 4 weeks remaining before he must return to his organization in the United States and he requested that his wife's visa petition be given immediate approval so that she will be able to return to the United States with him. Attached to the petitioner's letter is a self-explanatory affidavit executed and sworn to before the United States vice consul in Tokyo, Japan, by the petitioner and the proposed beneficiary on August 26, 1952. In addition to the foregoing, the petitioner submitted a copy of his orders issued on July 26, 1952, at headquarters of the United States Army Hospital, Camp Cooke, Calif., the contents of which are self-explanatory and need not be discussed in this opinion. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the appeal and enter the following order. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and the visa petition be approved. IN THE MATTER OF R G▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ In DEPORTATION Proceedings A-7398042 Decided by Hearing Officer May 21, 1952 Approved by Board August 7, 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 a native and citizen of Cuba, who recently arrived in the United States in 1948 and whose husband, a native and citizen of Cuba, resides there, even though she has a dependent, native-born United States citizen child. BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER Discussion: This record relates to a 23-year-old married female, a native and citizen of Cuba, whose only entry into the United States occurred at the port of Miami, Fla., by plane, on March 7, 1948, at which time she was admitted as a visitor under section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act of 1924 for a temporary period until April 6, 1948. That entry has been verified. She has testified that at the time of entry it was her intention to return to Cuba prior to expiration of her temporary admission. As a consequence of her meeting her present spouse, she has remained here continuously although she never applied for nor received an extension of her temporary admission. As of record, she was a bona fide visitor at the time of entry; such entry was a lawful one. Having remained beyond the period of her lawful admission, she is now amenable to deportation under the Immigration Act of 1924. The record shows that the alien was legally married on June 11, 1948, to a native and citizen of Cuba who has resided in Cuba ever since about October 18, 1950. They have one minor citizen child who is residing with the respondent. The respondent is employed as an armhole baster, earning $50 to $60 a week; her assets consist of $500 which includes amount in bank and $1,000 in general assets. She testified that her husband, who is residing in Cuba, has been ill and unemployed. It is the respondent's allegation that the child is wholly and completely dependent upon her for support. Upon the basis of the foregoing, the record supports the respondent's allegation that her deportation would result in a serious economic detriment to her citizen minor child. A check of the appropriate local and Federal records has failed to reveal an arrest. Inquiry has disclosed membership by the respondent in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union, and, through such membership, she has become party to an insurance policy on which she pays $10 a year. The respondent was unable to disclose the name of the carrier of this alleged insurance. She has, however, denied any membership in the International Workers order. She has produced affidavits of witnesses sufficient to establish that she has been a person of good moral character since her arrival in the United States. The record discloses that the respondent has no close family in the United States other than her daughter; her husband is residing in Cuba. She alleges that he is endeavoring to make application for an immigration visa for permanent residence. Suspension of deportation is a form of relief which is discretionary in its nature; it may not be claimed as a matter of right. In view of the respondent's comparatively short residence in the United States, her husband's presence in Cuba, it is believed that suspension of deportation is not warranted in the present matter. The alien has established her eligibility for voluntary departure and that relief is the maximum which will be granted to her as a matter of administrative discretion. To assure compliance with the grant of this privilege, deportation will be directed to follow in the event the alien fails to avail herself promptly of the grant of voluntary departure. Findings of Fact as to Deportability: On the basis of all the evidence in the case, it is found that: (1) The respondent is an alien, a native and citizen of Cuba. (2) The respondent's only entry into the United States occurred at the port of Miami, Fla., by plane, on March 7, 1948, at which time she was admitted as a visitor under section 3 (2) of the Immigration Act of 1924 for a temporary period not to exceed April 6, 1948. (3) Although the respondent never applied for or received an extension of her temporary admission, she has remained here continuously and for a longer time than permitted. Conclusion of Law as to Deportability: On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under sections 14 and 15 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, the respondent is subject to deportation on the ground 260397-54- -43 that, after admission as a visitor she has remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted under said act or regulations made thereunder. Order: It is ordered that the alien be required to depart from the United States without expense to the Government within such period and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate. It is further ordered that if the alien fails to depart when and as required, the privilege of voluntary departure shall be withdrawn without further notice or proceedings and the alien deported from the United States pursuant to law on the charge stated in the warrant of arrest. BEFORE THE BOARD (August 7,1952) Upon consideration of the entire record, it is ordered that the appeal from the decision of the hearing officer be and the same is hereby dismissed. IN THE MATTER OF PLANES NC-34577 and NC-45343 In FINE Proceedings F-5004 and F-1909, F-1910 Decided by the Board May 27, 1952 Fines-Section 16, Immigration Act of 1924-Bringing immigrant without immigration visa-Return of passage money. (1) The provisions in section 16 of the Immigration Act of 1924, requiring that the responsible party shall pay a fine in the sum of $1,000 for each immigrant brought to the United States who does not have an unexpired immigration visa and in addition shall pay a sum equal to the cost of the alien's passage, are separable and divisible. The responsible party may be found liable for the penal sum without being required to refund the cost of the passage money to the alien. (2) When an alien, excluded as an immigrant who does not have an unexpired immigration visa, is paroled into the United States and later adjusts his immigration status by departure to contiguous territory (Canada), or by departure to an island adjacent to the United States (Cuba), and return to this country, such alien is regarded as having obtained the benefit of his transportation to the United States and is not entitled to the refund of his passage money, which will be returned to the depositor. BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: This matter is before us by reason of an appeal from the decision of the Acting Assistant Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. Adjudications Division dated February 28, 1951, wherein fine in the amount of $1,000 plus passage money in the sum of $378 was imposed against the Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc., agents for the plane NC-34577 which plane arrived at New York from a foreign port or place on November 22, 1948, for violation of section 16 of the Immigration Act approved May 26, 1924 (8 U. S. C., sec. 216). The specific violation here complained of is bringing to the United States an immigrant, A- H-, who at the time of arrival was not in possession of an unexpired consular immigration visa. The subject alien passenger arrived on the plane at the port and on the date hereinabove indicated, she having boarded the plane in Paris, France, on November 21, 1948. On the occasion of arrival this pas |