85-316, because respondent is not a "parent" as defined in section 101 (b) (1), (2), respondent's son being over 21 years of age.

Section 14 of Public Law 85-316 states that:

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, the definitions contained in subsections (a) and (b) of section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act shall apply to sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 of this Act.

Since section 7 contains no such specific provision, the definitions found in the Immigration and Nationality Act apply and respondent is not a "parent." Hence, the alien is ineligible for administrative relief under section 7. The decision of the special inquiry officer is accordingly affirmed.

Order: It is hereby ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer be affirmed.

MATTER OF Y

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

A-7205042

Decided by Board October 1, 1958

Commissioner's Motion November 6, 1958

Decided by Board February 2, 1959

Deportability-Entry without inspection by falsely claiming United States citienship Exemption under section 7, Act of September 11, 1957. Discretionary grant of documentary waiver under section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the application of section 7 of the Act of September 11, 1957, relieve permanent resident alien from deportability based on entry without inspection by falsely claiming United States citizenship. DEPORTABLE: Act of 1952-Section 241 (a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—Immigrant without visa-Section 212(a)(20) of the act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (20)].

BEFORE THE BOARD

(October 1, 1958)

Discussion: The respondent is an 18-year-old single male, a native of Scotland and national of Great Britain, who repeatedly entered the United States in 1956 and 1957 by representing himself to be a citizen of the United States. He last entered on a nonspecified date in October 1957. On the occasions of his entries, he would have been admissible upon the presentation of an Alien Registration Card. An Alien Registration Card had been issued to him but he had lost it and had taken no steps to have it replaced. He, therefore, represented himself to be a citizen to gain entry on return from visits to Canada.

From the facts, it is clear that at the time of his entry the respondent was inadmissible as one who was not in possession of the appropriate documents, and as one who sought to enter by fraud or misrepresentation. After he had gained entry, he was deportable on the ground that he had entered without inspection and as one who had been inadmissible at time of entry. The special inquiry officer ruled that the grounds not based on lack of documents all stem from the fact that the respondent sought to enter by fraud or misrepresentation and were encompassed by the first sentence of

section 7 of Public Law 85-316 (Act of September 11, 1957). He held that the respondent being relieved from liability to deportation because of the entry without inspection was admissible except for the lack of documents. Exercising section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the special inquiry officer granted a waiver of the documentary requirements which existed at the time of the respondent's numerous entries.

We believe that the action of the special inquiry officer was proper. Public Law 85-316 is remedial and should be interpreted as far as possible to permit adjustment of status without requiring family separations. Under the first sentence of section 7 of Public Law 85-316, Congress intended to give lawful residence to a person who fell within its terms. Under section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181 (b)) the Attorney General is authorized to admit without documents an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who departed from the United States temporarily. Utilizing both these provisions at the same time, it becomes proper to terminate proceedings without requiring the respondent to depart from the United States and apply for a waiver of grounds of inadmissibility under the last part of section 7 and the provisions of section 5 of Public Law 85-316. However, the situation presented here must be distinguished from one where the discretion to exercise section 211(b) will not be exercised. In such a case, the alien must be considered inadmissible at the time of entry because of the lack of documents. This will prevent the alien from coming within the terms of section 7, for the section requires that the alien have been admissible in all respects except for the fact that fraud had been committed. Then, when a waiver of documents is not granted, the charge of entry without inspection would be sustained.

Order: It is ordered that no change be made in the order of the special inquiry officer terminating proceedings.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
(November 6, 1958)

Discussion: The respondent was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on June 2, 1949, and he thereafter reentered this country upon numerous occasions by falsely claiming United States citizenship. By decision dated October 1, 1958, the Board concluded that immigration status could be adjusted by the grant of a waiver of documents under section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and by utilizing the provisions contained in section 7 of Public Law 85-316 approved September 11, 1957, with respect to liability to deportation because of the entry without inspection. The Service contends that section 7 of Public

Law 85-316 has no application to deportability by reason of entry without inspection.

In legal contemplation, there is no distinction between an entry without inspection resulting from a surreptitious entry and one resulting from a false claim to United States citizenship (United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 62 F.2d 808 (C.C.A. 7, 1933), affirmed 289 U.S. 422). Neither the Immigration Act of 1917 nor the present Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 contains express language covering an entry by falsely claiming citizenship. The charge is founded upon the premise that one who enters by falsely claiming citizenship evades all inspection as an alien under the immigration laws and, therefore, enters without inspection (Matter of CV, 1 I. & N. Dec. 385 (1943)).

A substantial distinction exists between gaining entry by fraud or willful misrepresentation and gaining entry without inspection. The applicant for admission who admits alienage is inspected as to his physical, mental, and moral qualifications for admission to the United States even though he may have deceived the examining officer as to some material element. However, a citizen is accorded no inspection under the immigration laws and he consequently is not examined as to those prerequisites.

No other false or fraudulent representation can accomplish its unlawful purpose so effectively as the false claim to citizenship which precludes any inspection under the immigration laws, precludes determination as to whether the applicant is diseased, criminal, insane, or subversive, and prevents inquiry into compliance with the quota provisions of the law (United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 62 F.2d 808 (C.C.A. 7, 1933), affirmed 289 U.S. 422; Williams v. United States, 186 Fed. 479 (C.C.A. 2, 1911); Ex parte Greaves, 222 Fed. 157 (D.C. Cal., 1915)). This misrepresentation achieves not only the fraudulent procurement of a document or entry but the complete absence of any inspection of the applicant as an alien in order to determine admissibility.

Congress waived only the misrepresentation or fraud and not any grounds of excludability concealed thereby (Matter of S, 7 I. & N. Dec. 715). It would be inconsistent and contrary to the congressional purpose to hold that a false claim to citizenship which precludes all inquiry into admissibility is waived but that the statutory provision has no application unless the alien is "otherwise admissible." Nothing contained in Public Law 85-316 supports the view that a surreptitious entry or any entry accomplished by evasion of inspection was intended to be waived.

Analysis of other provisions of the immigration laws will also demonstrate that the entry without inspection charge based upon a false claim of citizenship is not within the contemplation of

section 7 of Public Law 85-316. Section 7 waives only those provisions of section 241 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act which relate to the deportation of aliens on the ground that they were excludable at the time of entry because they sought to procure or procured documentation or entry by fraud or misrepresentation. However, entry without inspection as defined by section 241 (a) (2) is a ground of deportation and not a ground of exclusion. Unless entry is actually effected, there is no charge under section 241(a) (2).

In Matter of M—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 642 (1954), the alien had gained entry by falsely claiming citizenship and applied for a waiver under section 212 (c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Despite the fact that inadmissibility under section 212(a)(19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act may be waived by the exercise of the discretion contained in section 212(c), relief was denied because the charge in section 241 (a) (2) is solely a ground of deportation and not a ground of exclusion. (See also Matter of T5 I. & N. Dec. 389.) The first portion of section 7 of Public Law 85-316 relates to the same class of persons described in section 212(a)(19) and to no others. Consequently, there is no more justification to apply section 7 to a deportation charge predicated upon section 241 (a) (2) than to apply section 212 (c). Section 7 requires termination of proceedings only with respect to aliens who were excludable on specified grounds at time of entry and not to one deportable after entry by reason of entry without inspection,

The order to show cause in this case contains no charge under section 241 (a) (2) although upon numerous occasions during 1956 and 1957 the respondent gained entry without documents by falsely claiming citizenship. To qualify for a waiver of documents under section 211(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the alien must establish that he previously was lawfully admitted for permanent residence. However, an alien who gained entry by falsely claiming citizenship is illegally in the United States and is not eligible for a waiver of documents with respect to subsequent entries (Matter of A——, 7 I. & N. Dec. 518; Matter of HH—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 738 (1955)). Since the respondent cannot qualify for a waiver of documents, the inclusion of the additional charge based upon the entry without inspection would appear to be superfluous. By reason of his entry without inspection, the respondent is not eligible for a waiver of documents and the documentary charge is sustained.

It should be noted that the respondent herein is not permanently debarred from the United States by reason of his entry upon a false claim of citizenship (Matter of M, 6 I. & N. Dec. 752 (1955)).