Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Section 5031, chapter 403 of the revised title 18 U. S. C. (Public Law 772, June 25, 1948, 80th Cong., ch. 645, 52 Stat. 764–766) provides that a juvenile is a person who has not attained his 18th birthday and "juvenile deliquency" is a violation of a law of the United States committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment. The phrase "who has not attained his 18th birthday" referred to in section 5031 (supra), was substituted for "17 years of age or under” as more clearly reflecting congressional intent and administrative construction. Hence, it can be seen that the offense committed by the appellant on May 24, 1947, was not a crime, but a juvenile delinquency. Therefore his admission of the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, to wit: Perjury is a nullity. Accordingly, he is not inadmissible to the United States under section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended.

For the reasons stated, the appeal will be sustained and the following order entered.

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained.

It is further ordered that the alien be admitted to the United States as a temporary visitor under section 3 (2) of the act of 1924, as amended, for such period of time and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate in the premises.

[blocks in formation]

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 father and daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico who have only been in the United States since 1949, the remainder of the family group consisting of two children born in the United States after entry of family in 1949 and the citizen wife/mother who except for a short period of time had maintained residence in Mexico.

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: This is an appeal from an order entered by the Assistant Commissioner on January 22, 1952, denying the respondent's application for suspension of deportation.

A resume of the facts, as shown in detail below, shows that the respondents are a father and minor daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico who illegally entered the United States on July 8, 1949, without visa or passport and at a place other than a designated port of entry. The adult male respondent married a native-born citizen of the United States in Mexico in September 1946. His wife had resided in Mexico from shortly after her birth until July 8, 1949, with the exception of a 6-month period in 1944 when she was employed in the United States. Shortly after her return to the United States in 1949 she gave birth to a daughter and later to a third child. The adult respondent's wife and the two younger children are native-born citizens of the United States, while he and his older daughter, as shown above, are natives and citizens of Mexico. The adult respondent has never applied for lawful admission to the United States for permanent residence.

The adult respondent does not contest the charges contained in the warrant of arrest but requests suspension of deportation under the provisions of section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, contending that his deportation would result in serious

economic detriment to his wife and two young children who are citizens of the United States.

We concur in the findings below that the adult male alien has established that he has met the minimum requirements for suspension of deportation in showing that his deportation would result in serious economic detriment to his citizen wife and children. Further there is no showing that indicates that he has been other than a person of good moral character for the past 5 years. In granting suspension of deportation under section 19 (c) (2) (a) the Attorney General has the power to suspend deportation when the minimum requirements have been complied with by the applicant. This authorization, however, is discretionary and not mandatory. Therefore, all the factors involved in each individual case must be considered and not the mere fact that the minimum requirements have been met. In the instant case, the respondents entered illegally in that they had no visas, no passports and that they entered at other than a designated port. The adult respondent's wife is a citizen of the United States, although she has resided since shortly after her birth, except for a short period of time, in Mexico. It must be concluded that no undue hardship would result if she returned to that country with her husband.

The adult alien admits that the family entered the United States at the specific time in order that his child could be born in this country (the child was born about 3 weeks after the family's entry). This admission would clearly indicate that at the time of his entry, it was his intention that by having his child born in the United States, he perhaps would secure the right of permanent residence by the exercise of this discretionary relief, thus circumventing the normal procedure for acquiring the right of permanent residence.

The parents have resided in Mexico most of their lives, having been in the United States a relatively short period of time. The mother is apparently of Mexican extraction and is accustomed to the ways of life in Mexico. The children are infants. The family therefore, have not established deep roots in this country. The record contains a statement by the mother showing that she and the children would return to Mexico with the alien members of the family if these members are not allowed to remain in the United States. The respondents are citizens of Mexico and as such are not subject to quota limitations. When consideration is given to these and other circumstances involved, it is concluded that the case does not present a strong enough appeal to warrant the exercise of the discretionary relief requested.

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

IN THE MATTER OF K

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-6190143

Decided by Board August 15, 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 an alien husband, native of Austria and a naturalized citizen of Canada, and alien wife, native and citizen of Czechoslovakia, who have been in the United States for a period of less than 2 years and may be able to depart to Canada, the place of former residence, despite the fact that they have two native-born United States citizen dependent children. CHARGE:

Warrant Act of 1924-Remainder longer-visitors (both aliens).

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion: This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Commissioner on May 6, 1952, in which the respondents were found deportable on the charges in the respective warrants of arrest, voluntary departure was granted with the alternative order that if the respondents failed to depart, that they be deported pursuant to law. In oral argument before this Board counsel has urged that suspension of deportation be granted asserting that it is doubtful whether the respondents will be able to obtain immigration visas should they depart voluntarily because of the status of the quota of the countries of their respective nationalities. It is stated that should they be required to depart, a serious economic detriment would result to two American citizen infant children.

The husband is a native
The wife is a native and

The sole question under consideration is whether suspension of deportation should be granted to these aliens. These respondents are husband and wife. of Austria, a naturalized citizen of Canada. subject of Czechoslovakia. The respondents last entered the United States at Champlain, N. Y., on foot on November 7, 1950, at which time, it is alleged, that they were admitted together as temporary visitors for a period of 2 or 3 weeks. The entry of the female alien has been verified. She was admitted for a period to December 6, 1950, as a visitor. The entry of the male alien has not been verified. The aliens have remained beyond the period for which they were admitted and

are deportable under the provisions of the Immigration Act of May 26, 1924, on the charge in the respective warrants of arrest which relate to each of them.

This record establishes that these aliens were married to each other on November 16, 1947. The female alien, who had been admitted to the United States for permanent residence on December 20, 1946, at the port of New York, was a legally resident alien at the time of the marriage. The male alien was a naturalized citizen and resident of Canada at the time of the marriage. However, the female alien took up residence in Canada on May 7, 1949, where her husband was then residing and continued to live in Canada up to November 7, 1950. The respondents have two children, the issue of the marriage, born in the United States. These children are American citizens. The male alien is operating a fruit and vegetable business from which he derives a livelihood for himself and his children. His business and the personal assets and cash are estimated to be of the value of $2,800. The female alien is unemployed. It is obvious that the deportation of the aliens would result in a serious economic detriment to their American citizen infant children.

This record indicates that these aliens are persons of good moral character who have no criminal record. It appears that they have no connection with subversive groups. However, it is to be noted that these are aliens who recently arrived in the United States as visitors and who have overstayed the period for which they were admitted. They have been in the United States for a period of less than 2 years. Although the birth of two minor citizen children has made them statutorily eligible for suspension of deportation, it does not necessarily follow that that relief should be granted. In fact, it is believed that voluntary departure is the maximum relief to which the respondents are entitled. It appears that they should be able to depart to Canada, the place of former residence. Should Canada refuse to readmit them further consideration should then be given by this Board to their applications for suspension of deportation.

Order: It is ordered that the applications for suspension of deportation be denied without prejudice to reconsideration upon a showing by the aliens that their admission to Canada has been refused.

It is further ordered, that the outstanding order of the Assistant Commissioner on May 6, 1952, be withdrawn and that the aliens be permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily without expense to the Government, to any country of their choice, within such period of time, in any event not less than 60 days, and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate.

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

« ÎnapoiContinuă »