IN THE MATTER OF S

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-7999041 and A-7999042

Decided by Hearing Officer May 29, 1952

Approved by Board July 10, 1952

Eligible displaced person-Section 6, act of June 25, 1948, as amended-good faith statement.

(1) A displaced person who executed good faith affidavit as to proposed employment in the United States, pursuant to section 6 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended and who, upon arrival in this country, did not accept the employment which had been offered to him and settled in another city than that specified, is not deportable on the ground of willful misrepresentation or as one who has procured a visa by fraud and misrepresentation, when it is shown that he acted because of factors not reasonably anticipated and with the approval of the sponsoring agency, and when evidence is otherwise lacking to show that he was not acting in good faith at the time he executed the affidavit abroad.

CHARGES:

Warrant: Act of 1917, as amended, and Act of June 25, 1948-Made willful misrepresentations to gain admission to the United States as eligible displaced persons.

Act of 1924-Visa-procured by fraud or misrepresentation. (Both.)

ORAL DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER

(Entered on May 29, 1952)

Discussion as to Deportability: This record relates to two respondents, husband and wife, hereafter referred to as the male respondent and the female respondent. The male respondent is a 30year-old native and last a citizen of Poland who presently claims to be stateless.

The female respondent is a 26-year-old native and last a citizen of Poland who presently claims to be stateless. The only entry of these respondents occurred at the port of New York April 20, 1951, aboard the U. S. N. S. Gen. S. D. Sturgis at which time they were admitted as immigrants for permanent residence under section 2 (c) of the act of June 25, 1948. Their entry has been verified. The record

shows that as a condition precedent to the issuance to the male respondent of his immigration visa, he accepted and agreed in good faith to abide by terms of employment offered by the United Service for New Americans in Milwaukee, Wis. The pro-offered employment was that of a laborer in Milwaukee, Wis. The female respondent did not agree to any specific employment or execute an affidavit prior to the issuance to her of her immigration visa since she was accompanying the male respondent who was the principal applicant. The record shows that upon arrival in the United States on April 20, 1951, neither respondent proceeded to Milwaukee, Wis., in accordance with the terms of the employment pro-offered by the United Service for New Americans and which the male respondent had agreed to abide by in good faith.

Section 6 of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, provides that where a visa is issued to an alien whose admission is based on the submission of an assurance of suitable employment, he shall first execute a signed statement under oath on affirmation that he accepts and agrees in good faith to abide by the terms of such employment. This section further provides that upon a finding by the Attorney General that such statement was falsely made, it shall be deemed to be a misrepresentation for the purpose of gaining admission into the United States and provides further that in determining whether or not the person accepted and agreed in good faith to abide by the said terms of employment, the Attorney General shall consider the manner, conditions, extent, and duration of the person's employment after admission into the United States. In this case we find that the male respondent failed utterly to accept the employment which he had previously agreed in good faith to accept and, in fact, had not even proceeded to Milwaukee, Wis., where such employment was awaiting him. This failure on the part of the male respondent to accept employment in Milwaukee, Wis., does not in and of itself sustain the charge in the warrant of arrest, but may be considered only as evidence of the fact that he had not in good faith executed the affidavit on January 30, 1951, to abide by the terms. of that employment.

The respondent has consistently maintained that at the time he executed his good-faith affidavit and at the time he secured his immigration visa in Schweinfurt, Germany, on February 1, 1951, he fully intended to proceed to Milwaukee, Wis., and accept the employment as a laborer which had been offered to him by the United Service for New Americans, but that it was only after he arrived at the port of New York and learning that his only relatives who had previously and up to the time he left Europe resided in Milwaukee, Wis., had changed their address and then resided in New York City.

The male respondent has testified that only after his arrival in New York and learning of the new residence of his only relatives, he then changed his mind and decided not to proceed to Milwaukee, but to remain in New York City if such permission could be obtained.

The record shows that within a reasonable time after his arrival in New York, the respondents presented their problems to the New York office of the United Service for New Americans where it was agreed that the New York office of the association would assume the responsibility in their case in place of the Milwaukee office of the same organization and agreed that the respondents might settle in New York City where their only relatives in the United States resided. It would thus appear that insufficient evidence has been adduced to establish that the male respondent did not act in good faith when he executed his good-faith affidavit in connection with the issuance of the immigration visa and accordingly, the charges in the warrants of arrest cannot be sustained.

Findings of Fact:

(1) That both respondents are aliens, natives and last citizens of Poland.

(2) That the only entry of both respondents in the United States occurred on April 20, 1951, at the port of New York aboard the U.S. N. S. Gen. S. D. Sturgis and admitted under section 2 (c) of the act of June 25, 1948; as immigrants for permanent residence.

(3) That as a condition precedent to the issuance of the male respondent's immigration visa, he did on January 30, 1951, before an official of the United States Displaced Persons Commission in Schweinfurt, Germany, execute under oath an affidavit accepting and agreeing in good faith to accept employment in Milwaukee, Wisc., as a laborer.

(4) That at the time respondent was issued his immigration visa on February 1, 1951, in Schweinfurt, Germany, he intended upon arrival in the United States to proceed to Milwaukee, Wis., and to accept employment as a laborer.

(5) That upon arrival at the port of New York on April 20, 1951, and being presented with factors other than they had reasonably anticipated, the respondents with the approval of their sponsoring agency changed their mind and settled in New York City.

Conclusion of Law:

(1) That under section 19 (a) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended, and section 10 of the act of June 25, 1948, neither respondent is subject to deportation in that at the time

of entry he was not entitled to admission to the United States for the reason that he is a person who has willfully made misrepresentations to persons charged with the enforcement or administration of the Displaced Persons Act of 1948, as amended, in order to gain admission to the United States as an eligible displaced person. (2) That under sections 13 and 14 of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, neither respondent is subject to deportation in that he is found to be at the time of entry not entitled under said act to enter the United States for the reason that the immigration visa which he presented was not valid because procured by fraud or misrepresentation.

Decision: It is my order that the proceedings be terminated.

BEFORE THE BOARD

(July 10, 1952)

Approved by the Board of Immigration Appeals on July 10, 1952.

IN THE MATTER OF V— M— AND D— M— M————

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-7122602

V-937560

Decided by Board June 3, 1952

Discretionary relief-Voluntary departure.

(1) An alien who during the hearing under the warrant of arrest indicates his intention to depart from the United States within 3 weeks, is allowed an opportunity by the hearing officer to make arrangements for such departure, and who thereafter takes no steps within the stated period of time to effectuate his departure from the United States, does not merit a further chance at this form of relief.

(2) An alien should be accorded a reasonable period of time, usually a period not less than 30 days, to effectuate his voluntary departure from the United States (Matter of M—, 4, I. & N. Dec. 626). However, if he has signified his willingness and intention to depart within 3 weeks, it may be considered that such a period is appropriate to the circumstances of his case. His failure to depart within such period of time, when the opportunity is allowed him, militates against a further grant of this privilege and his deportation will be ordered.

CHARGE:

Warrant: Act of 1924-Remained longer-Visitor.

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: These are appeals from orders of the Assistant Commissioner of November 29, 1951, directing deportation. In his consideration of the cases, the Assistant Commissioner concluded that no discretionary relief was warranted.

These cases have been argued jointly before us by counsel for the respondents and for that reason we will consider the cases together. The only application made to us was that voluntary departure be authorized within the next 30 to 35 days. In both cases the respondents came as visitors, remained here after their temporary admission expired, during the course of the hearing were accorded an opportunity to depart voluntarily, did not do so, and are now asking for a second chance to effect voluntary departure. Before discussing in detail the facts in each case, it is pertinent to quote the standard