enunciated in Matter of Andrade, supra.3 Accordingly, we conclude that the sealing of respondent's record of arrest and conviction of marijuana possession under Section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code operates to eliminate the conviction as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11) of the Act. For these reasons, we have concluded that the immigration judge's decision in terminating deportation proceedings was correct. ORDER: The decision of the immigration judge is affirmed. In his letter to the General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service dated March 7, 1974, (Appendix to Matter of Andrade, 14 I. & N. Dec. 651 (BIA 1974), the Solicitor General stated that: ... A disparity in treatment of state and federal youth offenders is particularly inappropriate in view of the fact that, quite frequently, the underlying facts involve violation of state and federal law, and may be the basis of either state or federal prosecution. Indeed, as to persons under 21, federal law encourages the United States Attorney to forego prosecution and surrender the juvenile to state authorities if "it will be to the best interest of the United States and of the juvenile offender" to do so. 18 U.S.C. 5001. Where a choice can be made, it is generally the practice that less serious offenses are handled by state prosecution, and that federal prosecutions are reserved for the more serious offenses. ... the Service would be warranted in construing Section 1251(a)(11) as not requiring deportation on the basis of a state marihuana conviction of a youth offender which has been expunged or set aside pursuant to a law comparable to the Federal Youth Corrections Act, if the youth offender upon conviction could have obtained expungement under the federal law if he had been subjected to federal prosecution. MATTER OF PATEL In Bond Proceedings A-20284161 Decided by Board May 7, 1976 (1) Generally, an alien is not and should not be detained or required to post bond except on a finding that he is a threat to the national security, or that he is a poor bail risk. (2) Where it appeared from the record that respondent was living with his wife and United States citizen child, had worked for the same employer for almost two years and had kept the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed of his address changes; and that respondent had never been arrested or convicted of any crime and had never been involved with narcotics or involved in any subversive or immoral activities, there was no reason to justify holding respondent under even a minimal bond, and respondent was ordered released from custody of his own recognizance. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Samuel D. Myers, Esquire Freedman, Freedman & Myers, Ltd. 230 West Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60606 The respondent appeals from the February 18, 1976 decision of the immigration judge in which he granted a reduction in bond from the $1,000 set by the district director to $500. The appeal will be sustained. The statute provides that, pending a determination of deportability, an alien may, upon warrant of the Attorney General, be arrested and taken into custody. Such alien may then, in the discretion of the Attorney General, be continued in custody, released under not less than $500 bond, or released on conditional parole. Section 242(a), Immigration and Nationality Act. The Attorney General's authority in this regard is delegated to certain designated officials by regulation. 8 CFR 242.2(a). An alien generally is not and should not be detained or required to post bond except on a finding that he is a threat to the national security, Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952), or that he is a poor bail risk, Matter of Moise, 12 I. & N. Dec. 102 (BIA 1967); Matter of S-Y-L-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 575 (BIA 1962). It is not clear from the record why the respondent was arrested. The factors which the immigration judge considers to be adverse and which in his judgment militate in favor of requiring a bond are that the respondent overstayed his student visa and that the visa petition of which he is the beneficiary was denied because he lacked a labor certification. These factors bear little if any relevance to the issue of whether or not the respondent is likely to appear for his deportation proceeding. Such a broad interpretation of what constitutes an "adverse factor" in this context could result in requiring a bond of almost every alien who is held in deportation proceedings. In the respondent's favor, it appears from the record that he has never been arrested or convicted of any crime, involved in any subversive or immoral activities, or involved with narcotics. He is living with his wife and United States citizen child, and has been working for the same employer for almost two years; the respondent has kept the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed of his address changes. With regard to the denial of a labor certification, he has filed a suit in federal court. It appears to us that no reasons have been given to justify holding the respondent under even a minimal bond. Consequently, we shall sustain the appeal and enter the following order. ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the respondent shall be released from custody on his own recognizance. MATTER OF FRIESS In Deportation Proceedings A-20372484 Decided by Board May 7, 1976 Respondent, a religious trainee at a Buddhist Community, who would be performing work related to the maintenance and function of the Community, did not qualify for the labor precertification provided for the categories of employment listed in 29 CFR 60.7 Schedule A, Group III, and was not otherwise exempt from the labor certification requirement provided in section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Absent such labor certification, respondent was ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. CHARGE: Order: Act of 1952-Section 241(a)(2)—[8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Nonimmigrant trainee remained longer. ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jeffrey H. Swartzbaugh, Esquire Lamantia, Gelacak & Swartzbaugh 816 Prudential Building Buffalo, New York 14202 ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: This is an appeal from the September 26, 1975 decision of the immigration judge in which he found the respondent deportable as charged, denied his application for adjustment of status, and granted him two months voluntary departure, with an alternate order of deportation to Germany. The appeal will be dismissed. The respondent, a native and citizen of Germany and a landed immigrant in Canada, was admitted to the United States on December 31, 1973 as a nonimmigrant trainee authorized to remain until March 31, 1974. His application for status as a permanent resident, filed on January 17, 1974, was denied by the district director on September 23, 1974 on the ground that the respondent was going to be employed in the United States, was not exempt from the labor certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and did not have a labor certification or, therefore, a priority date. The district director concluded that the respondent was ineligible for adjustment of status. On November 18, 1974 the respondent was granted seven days within which to depart from the United States; he failed to depart. Deportability is conceded. The facts of this case are as follows. The respondent, a lawyer by profession in Germany, journeyed to Canada, where he became a landed immigrant, and studied at the Zen Center in Toronto, Canada from September 1972 to March 1973. Because there are only members but no Zen teachers at the Center in Toronto, the respondent wished to enter the United States to complete his training at the Zen Center, which is a Buddhist Community, in Rochester, New York. He wanted to enter the United States for 18 months, but was informed that he could enter for only six months at a time and apply for extensions. His order to show cause shows that he was admitted for only three months. The respondent testified that when he applied for his first extension he was told it was very unlikely he could get it renewed for a long time, so he sought the advice of a lawyer. According to the director of the Zen Center, in his letter of January 30, 1974, the program at the Zen Center includes "study, zazenmeditation, manual work, and various other activities, all of which are intended to lead to religious awakening, or Enlightenment." The training period varies in length, depending on the individual readiness of each student. The Center is selective in its choice of students, since it cannot train a great many. The director of the Center felt that the respondent showed "exceptional promise" and would make a "genuine contribution towards a better society" if he could complete his training, which would take three to five years. The director of the Center then stated that he would personally guarantee that the respondent would not become a public charge. It appears to us that the work the respondent would do at the Center, chiefly maintenance of the Center and its functions, is part of the training program and must be done by the students or trainees there. However, although the Center probably would not hire outsiders to perform this work for wages, we think that a labor certification is required nevertheless. Aliens who seek to enter the United States to perform religious duties are considered to be coming to perform skilled or unskilled labor and therefore must obtain a labor certification, although they are precertified by regulation. 29 CFR 60.2(a)(1) and 60.7, Schedule A, Group III(a), (b), and (c). No provision is made for precertification or a waiver of certification for those who are in training for an occupation in one of the Group III categories. Moreover, in an analogous situation, a student over 16 years of age who was potentially employable was required to obtain a labor certification. Matter of Redekop-Rempening, 11 I. & N. Dec. 674 (BIA 1966). On the basis of the foregoing, we find that because he does not have a |