MATTER OF CESSNA 180 “N4502B"

In Fine Proceedings

ELP-10/2.46

Decided by Board February 20, 1975

The maximum penalty to be assessed upon the pilot for a violation of section 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is $500 for each arrival of the aircraft in the United States, not $500 for each passenger. Although the pilot intentionally disregarded the law by failing to notify the proper authorities upon landing, mitigation of the fine by $200 was appropriate where the plane had a faulty compass and faulty carburetor resulting in a rough and exhausting flight which did not arrive back in the United States until a very late hour.

BASIS FOR FINE: Act of 1952-Section 239 [8 U.S.C. 1229]

IN RE: Cessna 180 "N4502B", which arrived at El Paso, Texas, from foreign, on April 29, 1973. Persons involved: John B. Miller, pilot, Barbara Logan, Stephen Weeks and Aleta Nelson.

ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT: Pro Se

In a decision dated August 27, 1974, the district director imposed a fine of $2,000 upon the pilot for violation of section 239 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and he denied the pilot's request for mitigation or remission of the fine. The pilot has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained.

The pilot has conceded that he violated section 239 of the Act when he arrived at El Paso, Texas from Mexico on April 29, 1973, without notifying the proper authorities in advance and without presenting himself or his passengers for inspection. However, the district director imposed a fine of $2,000 for that violation, apparently on the theory that failure to present each passenger resulted in a separate violation. This

was error.

We have held that section 239 contemplates a maximum penalty of only $500 for each arrival of an aircraft in the United States. Matter of Howard Aircraft “N-813,” 7 I. & N. Dec. 584 (BIA 1957); see Matter of Aircraft No. "N-2476-U," 11 I. & N. Dec. 73 (BIA 1965). Consequently, the pilot is subject only to a fine of $500 stemming from his arrival in the United States on April 29, 1973.

The pilot has requested mitigation or remission of the fine. He is a United States citizen, and has stated that he was returning with three friends, also United States citizens, from a beach outing in Mexico when the violation occurred. He has alleged that his plane had a faulty compass and a faulty carburetor and that the flight to El Paso had therefore been rough and exhausting. He has also stated that he elected not to notify the proper authorities of the arrival "because it was very late and I didn't want to bother a customs agent to come out and see four beach-tired El Pasoans."

The District Director noted in his opinion that the pilot had failed to report for inspection on another occasion in 1963, but that he had only been issued a warning letter by the district director on that occasion. On appeal, the pilot has stated that his earlier violation was the result of bad weather conditions, and that he had voluntarily notified the Service of that violation immediately after it had occurred.

While we cannot condone the pilot's intentional disregard of the law, we believe that under the circumstances some mitigation is warranted. Consequently, we will allow mitigation in the amount of $200 and impose a fine of $300 upon the pilot.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the fine permitted to stand is reduced to $300.

MATTER OF LEE

In Section 248 Proceedings

A-20317175

Decided by Regional Commissioner February 26, 1975

(1) An applicant seeking classification under section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a treaty investor may qualify provided he is a national of the treaty country, notwithstanding that the enterprise in which he has invested is owned by a person or persons who are not treaty investors.

(2) The alien investor must be coming solely to develop and direct the operations of the enterprise in which the investment has been or is in the process of being made and it must be shown that he has a controlling interest in the enterprise.

(3) In this case, it is alleged that the total value of the enterprise is or will be $64,000. (The value was stated originally to be at $90,000). Of this amount, applicant had invested $10,000, alleging that at some future time he would invest additional capital to bring his investment to 51 percent. This is too speculative, and further, in the absence of any indication of the income the applicant may derive, he has failed to show that his investment does not represent a small amount of capital invested in a marginal enterprise for the purpose of earning a living, which is counter to the requirements of 22 CFR 41.41(a)(2).

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Hiram W. Kwan, Esquire

840 North Broadway, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90012

This is an appeal from the decision of the district director, San Francisco, who denied the application on the grounds that applicant had not established eligibility for treaty investor status in that more than 51% of the company in which he is investing is not and will not be owned by Korean nationals.

The applicant is a 37-year-old married native and citizen of Korea. He last entered the United States on December 26, 1973, as a nonimmigrant visitor for business. The instant application is seeking a change to nonimmigrant treaty investor status.

The record reflects that the applicant had submitted with the application an Agreement to Negotiate which shows the applicant had deposited in escrow a sum of $8,500 as evidence of his good faith intention to negotiate to purchase a partnership in a business known as "The Korean Garden Restaurant", located in San Francisco, California. The agree

ment was made for the purchase of one-third interest of the business for a price to be not less than $30,000.

On appeal, counsel for the applicant states that the applicant now has $10,000 in escrow and is prepared to invest a total of $35,000 in the business enterprise. In the appeal, counsel states the worth of the enterprise will be approximately $64,000. This is in clear contradiction to the total of more than $90,000 which is indicated to be the value of the business in the Agreement to Negotiate referred to above. While evidence has been furnished to show the $10,000 has been paid to the owner of the present business enterprise, no evidence has been submitted that the enterprise is of the value as alleged above by the applicant's counsel.

The pertinent statutory provisions relating to the status the applicant is seeking is contained in section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which includes among the classes of nonimmigrants the follows:

(E) an alien entitled to enter the United States under and in pursuance to the provisions of a treaty of commerce and navigation between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national, and the spouse and children of any such alien if accompanying or following to join him: (i) solely to carry on substantial trade, principally between the United States and the foreign state of which he is a national; or (ii) solely to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise in which he has invested, or of an enterprise in which he is actively in the process of investing, a substantial amount of capital.

While we are not here concerned with aliens described in clause (i) of the above section which pertains to treaty traders, we are concerned with persons falling under clause (ii) who are defined as treaty investors. Also, pertinent is the text of 22 CFR 41.41(a) which reads as follows:

41.41 Treaty Investors

(a) An alien shall be classifiable as a nonimmigrant treaty investor if he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he qualifies under the provisions of section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Act, and that:

(1) He intends to depart from the United States upon the termination of his status; and

(2) He is an alien who has invested or is investing capital in a bona fide enterprise and is not seeking to proceed to the United States in connection with the investment of a small amount of capital in a marginal enterprise solely for the purpose of earning a living; or that

(3) He is employed by a treaty investor in a responsible capacity and the employer is a foreign person having the nationality of the treaty country who is maintaining the status of a nonimmigrant treaty investor, or organization which is principally owned by a person or persons having the nationality of the treaty country and, if not residing abroad, maintaining nonimmigrant treaty investor status.

The applicant is not seeking nonimmigrant treaty investor status as an employee of a treaty investor. Therefore, the provisions of 22 CFR

41.41(a)(3) are not applicable to him. Rather, he is seeking that status as an investor in his own right by negotiating for a partnership and investing a sum of money in an existing enterprise.

Note 5 to 22 CFR 41.41, Volume 9-Visas, Foreign Affairs Manual, states that insofar as the nationality of the corporations is concerned, Note 8 to 22 CFR 41.40 of that publication is applicable to treaty investors. Note 8 to 22 CFR 41.40 reads:

8. Nationality of corporations engaged in trade

The nationality of a firm is determined for the purpose of section 101(a)(15)(E) by the nationality of those persons who own the principal amount (i.e., 51 percent or more) of the stock of that corporation, regardless of the place of incorporation.

Further, in the Matter of N-S-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 426, a precedent decision, it states in pertinent part:

The fact a firm is incorporated under the laws of a state of the United States does not necessarily determine that it is not a foreign firm; and that nationality of such a firm may be determined for such purpose by the nationality of those persons who own the principal amount (i.e., more than 51 percent) of that firm.

If the applicant in the instant case were seeking classification under section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) as an employee of an investing foreign corporation or other foreign organization within the purview of 22 CFR 41.41 (a)(3), supra, it would be necessary to determine whether that corporation or other organization was owned predominantly by nationals of Korea. However, in this case, the applicant is an individual having the nationality of the treaty country and he is seeking the "E-2" status on the basis of his own investment and not as an employee of an investing foreign organization. To qualify as an investor under section 101 (a)(15)(E)(ii) and 22 CFR 41.41(a)(2), it is the nationality of the individual investor, rather than the nationality of the enterprise in which he has invested, or is actively in the process of investing, which is pertinent. Thus, an applicant, as a national of a treaty country, is not precluded from eligibility for treaty investor status he may be seeking by the fact that the enterprise in which he has invested is presently owned entirely by a person or persons who are not themselves treaty investors.

However, the applicant in this case does appear to be ineligible for that status on another ground. Section 101(a)(15)(E)(ii) of the Act requires the alien investor to be coming "solely to develop and direct the operations of" the enterprise in which the substantial investment has been or is in the process of being made. In order for an investor to develop and direct the operations of an enterprise, it must be shown that he has a controlling interest; otherwise, other individuals who do have the controlling interest are in a position to dictate how the enterprise is to be developed and directed.