proposed stay. A statement of nonimmigrant status must include an allegation that the alien has not been employed, is not presently employed, is not presently seeking employment, and does not intend to seek employment during the rest of his stay in this country. If the alien makes a contrary statement an extension of the authorized period of temporary stay would naturally not be granted (8 C. F. R. 119.4).

For the same reasons, an alien seeking to negative an allegation of deportability for violation of the terms of his admission as a nonimmigrant will be asked if he is or has been employed and, if he answers in the affirmative, a warrant of arrest in deportation may be issued. Therefore, we conclude that, because the false statements about respondent's employment were material, respondent committed perjury on July 14, 1948, (Matter of L, A-6625135, June 23, 1952, B. I. A.; Matter of H—, A-3728175, June 24, 1952, B. I. A.).

In recent years, it has been the Attorney General's view that the commission of perjury within the previous 5-year period will not preclude an exercise of discretionary relief in the alien's favor. In Matter of V, 2, I. & N. Dec. 606 (A. G., August 1, 1946), the alien was granted voluntary departure and advance exercise of the 7th proviso, because he had a long residence of 27 years and a citizen wife. In Matter of U-, 2, I. & N. Dec. 830 (A. G., March 20, 1947), suspension was granted to alien parents on the basis of their long residence of 22 years and the fact that they had a 17-year-old dependent child. In Matter of B, 2, I. & N. Dec. 492 (A. G., September 16, 1947), suspension was ordered, because the alien had a citizen wife and two children, although the alien had been a United States resident only 6 years.

In the instant case, respondent has a citizen wife and two citizen children. He has been living here 5 years and committed the crime of perjury about 4 years ago. In view of these facts, respondent comes within the above rule and discretionary relief is permissible. On the basis of the entire record, we feel that respondent's case is a meritorious one, since, except for the perjury offense, respondent has a fine record. Therefore, we conclude that voluntary departure is appropriate, (Matter of B (supra)).

Order: It is ordered that the outstanding order of deportation be withdrawn and the alien be permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily without expense to the Government, to any country of his choice, within such period of time, in any event not less than 90 days, and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate conditioned upon consent of surety.

It is further ordered that if the alien does not depart from the United States in accordance with the foregoing, the order of deportation be reinstated and executed.

IN THE MATTER OF İ

IN VISA PETITION Proceedings

VP 5-7802

Decided by District Director July 28, 1952

Decided by Board October 21, 1952

Visa petition-Marriage, invalidity of proxy marriage in Japan.

(1) The registration of a marriage on March 7, 1952, in Japan, when the United States citizen veteran husband was in the United States and wife in Japan, which marriage was not preceded by a Japanese or Christian ceremony, is in the nature of a proxy marriage and is deemed not to be a valid marriage within the contemplation of the act of August 19, 1950 (Public Law 717, 81st Cong.), as amended by the act of March 19, 1951 (Public Law 6, 82d Cong.).

BEFORE THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR

(July 28, 1952)

Discussion: Upon consideration of the entire record it is hereby ordered that the above-entitled application (or petition) be and the same is hereby denied for the following reason or reasons:

The petitioner claims to have married the beneficiary, S― Lin Kobe, Japan, on March 7, 1952, by civil ceremony. The petitioner is a member of the United States Army. After his return to the United States from Japan he completed a portion of a form entitled "Notification of Marriage." The form was then mailed to the American Consul, Kobe, Japan, where the beneficiary completed a portion of the form. The American consul then attached to the form a certificate to the effect that the notification of marriage was submitted in accordance with article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code and its acceptance by the ward office constituted lawful registration of the marriage under article 739 of the Japanese Civil Code. Since the signing of such document, the petitioner has remained in the United States and the beneficiary in Japan.

There was no signing or ceremony of any kind performed in the presence of both the petitioner and the beneficiary.

Section 28 (n) of the Immigration Act of 1924 provides that the term "wife" or "husband" does not include a wife or husband by reason of a proxy marriage.

As the circumstances under which this marriage was entered into place it in the class of a proxy marriage, the petition must be denied.

BEFORE THE BOARD

(October 21, 1952)

Discussion: This case is before us on appeal from a decision of the district director dated July 28, 1952, denying the visa petition on the ground that the alleged marriage of the petitioner and the beneficiary was in the nature of a proxy marriage.

The visa petition was filed in behalf of SL, the alleged wife of the petitioner, and contains the statement that the marriage occurred on March 7, 1952, at Kobe, Japan. There has been submitted to us a document entitled "Notification of Marriage" dated January 31, 1952. In item 11 of this document reading "Date and place of marriage (religious) ceremony:" which appears separately in the questions to be answered by the groom and by the bride, the place of the marriage is shown as Fort Belvoir, Va., in the groom's portion of the document and no statement was made as to the place of the marriage in the bride's portion of the document. The date of the marriage was left blank in both portions of the document. The document also shows that the notification of marriage was filed and accepted by the director of Ikuta Ward Office, Kobe, Japan, on March 7, 1952. There is attached a certificate by the vice consul of the United States at Kobe, Japan, which contains information that a signed statement by J- DL is on file at his office to the effect that he resided in Japan previous to the registration of his marriage; that he was acquainted with S— U— during his residence in Japan; and that he initiated his courtship in Japan. During oral argument before this Board the petitioner stated that he became engaged to the beneficiary of the visa petition in May 1949; that they intended to be married but that he was required to depart from Japan on a few days' notice; that he left Japan on November 8, 1951; and that there was no ceremonial marriage prior to his departure from that country.

While the American consul general at Kobe, Japan, informed the petitioner that there have been many similar cases in which the Immigration and Naturalization Service has approved visa petitions, we have made informal inquiry of that Service and have been informed that where there had been a ceremonial marriage and a subsequent registration thereof with the Japanese authorities, visa petitions have been approved and that where there was merely a registration but no prior ceremonial marriage, such visa petitions have been denied.

We note that the Immigration and Naturalization Service issued an instruction on May 26, 1952, File 56323/921, to the effect that ceremonial marriages performed in Japan between members of the United States Armed Forces and Japanese nationals are not valid unless registered in accordance with Japanese law; that such marriages could

be registered in Japan after the departure of the United States citizen spouse; and that the registration of a marriage under the procedure mentioned in that instruction was merely a legalization of the ceremonial marriage and was not a proxy marriage within the purview of section 28 (n) of the Immigration Act of 1924. Such marriages are valid as of the effective date of the registration. The decision in Matter of S-, 4, I. & N. Dec. 622, C. O. April 1, 1952, is to the same effect.

Section 28 (n) provides that the term "wife" does not include a wife by reason of a proxy or picture marriage. The purported marriage in the instant case does not appear to be even a proxy marriage but it clearly comes within the type of marriages which Congress was endeavoring to exclude from the category of marriages which would be valid for immigration purposes. In the instant case the only evidence relied upon is the certificate of the consular officer on March 7, 1952 (alleged to be the date of the marriage), at which time the petitioner was in the United States and the beneficiary was in Japan. Clearly, the procedure relied upon is effective only where there was a ceremonial marriage during a time when both parties were in Japan and the only defect in the proceeding was that the marriage had not been registered under the laws of Japan. Here we have only a registration of a purported marriage which in fact did not exist. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the petitioner has not established that the beneficiary is his lawful wife. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

IN THE MATTER OF P

IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS

A-2221498

Decided by Board July 30, 1952

Deportability: Former naturalized person whose last entry as citizen-Immigration visa; doctrine of relation back invoked in case of former naturalized citizen who had not been a legal resident prior to naturalization.

(1) Alien, who at time of last entry, had the status of a naturalized citizen but whose naturalization was later canceled for fraud and who prior to his naturalization had not been a legal resident of the United States is deportable on the charge of no immigration visa, case being distinguishable from Matter of C—, A-5982828, 3, I. & N. Dec. 275, in which case the alien had been a legal resident prior to his naturalization. Cf. Matter of P, A-4068102, 4, I. & N. Dec. 373). CHARGES:

Warrant: Act of 1924-No immigration visa.

Act of 1917-Admits crime prior to entry-Procuring naturalization through fraud.

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: The case comes forward on appeal from the order dated November 28, 1951, of the Assistant Commissioner ordering the respondent deported on the charges stated in the warrant of arrest. The record relates to a native and citizen of Italy, 57 years old, male, who last entered the United States at the port of New York on May 26, 1947, ex-S. S. Sobieski and was admitted as a citizen. The facts of the case are fully set forth in the decision of the Assistant Commissioner. Counsel at oral argument took issue with the finding of deportability predicated upon the last entry of the respondent on May 26, 1947, alleging that the respondent is not subject to deportation on the basis of the 1947 entry when he was admitted as a citizen, but if deportable, is deportable on the basis of a previous entry on September 4, 1936, when he was admitted as an alien in possession of a reentry permit.

Counsel relies upon Matter of C, 3, I. & N. Dec. 275, to support his possession. He concedes that there is a factual difference in the two cases, in that in the cited case the respondent had been a legal resident prior to his naturalization which was later canceled for