« ÎnapoiContinuați »
dealing to the extent that he gave the winners more chips and that he took the chips away from the losers. He stated that he placed the chips of the losers in a chip receiver and that these chips belonged to Mr. S
The respondent also claimed that he did not know how the players obtained the chips; that he had no idea whether the players brought their own chips; and that he does not know whether there was a cashier at the club from whom the players might have obtained their chips. When he was asked whether he observed any gambling while employed at the Bataan Recreation Club, he answered, “I don't remember, I did not see any." When asked whether the people playing fan-tan or dominoes won or lost any money,
his answer was that he saw them win chips and lose chips.
Counsel argues that if money changed hands, it was handled by the proprietor (S) "as the investigative report reveals.” Som was familiar with the amount that could be won or lost in his club during the course of a night, but there is nothing to indicate that he handled the money. Although counsel does not make the assertion in his brief, it seems clear from the respondent's testimony that he is claiming that he did not know that money was being wagered in the games in which he was a dealer. He was a mature person, he was being paid solely for his work as a dealer, and he was employed in this gambling house for 6 months. Under these circumstances, his claim is too preposterous to believe, and we find, as a fact, that he was fully aware that money was being wagered on these games.
It is contended by counsel that the respondent was a mere employee at the Bataan Recreation Club and cannot be said to have been glambling if he did not handle the money nor receive any of the winnings. No authority is cited for the contention. We hold that the reference in 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) (4) to income from illegal gambling activities includes income from (1) an alien's financial interest in a gambling establishment, (2) the gambling activities of the alien himself, and (3) an alien's employment in a gambling establishment where the employment has some proximate relationship to the gambling activities, such as a dealer or operator of a gaming table. Hence, we conclude that the salary received by the respondent as a dealer in the Bataan Recreation Club was income derived from gambling activities.
Counsel has referred to the fact that Mr. S- had a city license to conduct a card room and that there was nothing to indicate any arrests for gambling had been made in his establishment. The investigating officer stated that in all probability the games played at the Bataan Recreation Club were illegal under the Washington Statute but are tolerated and licensed by the City of Seattle. The special inquiry officer cited section 9.47.0110 of the Revised Code of Washington which prescribed a term of imprisonment up to 5 years in the case of a person who operates, as the owner, dealer, etc., any gambling game or game of chance. Counsel does not urge that gambling may be conducted lawfully in the State of Washington, and we hold that the gambling activities under discussion here were illegal.
As appears from the foregoing, the respondent's income was derived from illegal gambling activities during the period from October 1956 until April 1957. In connection with the further question of whether his income was derived principally from that source, we have indicated that the respondent testified that he took the job in the Bataan Recreation Club because he was unable to find any other employment at the time. There is nothing in the record indicating that he had any source of income from October 1956 to April 1957 other than his salary of $35 weekly from the Bataan Recreation Club. Hence, not only was his income derived principally from illegal gambling activities, but it appears that his income was derived solely from such activities.
We have considered one additional point although it was not specifically raised by counsel. This relates to the connotation to be given to the word “principally" in 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(4). In other words, does it mean a case in which, considering the 10-yearperiod as a whole, the income was derived principally from illegal gambling activities? If that had been the intention of Congress, the result could have been achieved by inserting the words “during such period” as was done in paragraphs (2), (3), (5) and (7) of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f). The fact that it does not appear in paragraph (4), which is here involved, is abundant reason for refusing to interpret that paragraph as though it read, “one whose income during the 10-year-period is derived principally from illegal gambling activities.”
The interpretation suggested in the preceding paragraph would lead to absurd results. In the respondent's case, although all of his income during a period of 6 months was derived from illegal gambling activities, it would represent only one-twentieth of his income during the 10-year-period, and in those cases in which 10 years of good moral character must be established, it would apparently be necessary for the alien to have derived his income principally from illegal gambling activities for approximately 5 years before the bar of this provision would come into effect.
In cases under 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) (4), the suggested construction would result in reducing by approximately one-half the period of good moral character which such aliens would be required to establish. That such a construction was not intended by Congress is
amply demonstrated by other paragraphs of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f). For example, paragraph (2) bars an alien from establishing good moral character if he committed a single act of adultery at any time during the required period of good moral character (5, 7 or 10 years), paragraph (5) precludes establishment of good moral character where the alien has been convicted of two gambling offenses at any time during the entire period even though the convictions may have been for minor gambling infractions, and paragraph (6) bars an alien who, in order to obtain benefits under the act, gave false testimony on any occasion during the entire period.
As we have indicated above, 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) commences with the statement that no person shall be regarded as a person of good moral character “who, during the period for which good moral character is required to be established, is, or was,” which is followed by paragraphs (1) to (8), inclusive. 8 U.S.C. 1254(a) (5), under which the respondent's application for suspension of deportation was filed, contains the requirement that the alien prove "that during all of such period he has been and is a person of good moral character.” In view of the language we have emphasized, we believe that the specific terms of the statute preclude a finding of good moral character in the case of any alien who has committed the forbidden acts or in whose case the proscribed condition existed at any time during the required period of 5, 7 or 10 years. For that reason and on the basis of our finding above that the respondent's income for a period of approximately 6 months was derived principally from illegal gambling activities, we hold that 8 U.S.C. 1101(f) (4) precludes a finding of good moral character in the respondent's case. Hence, he has not proved that "during all of such period” (10 years) he has been a person of good moral character as required by 8 U.S.C. 1254(a) (5), and the appeal will be dismissed.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.
MATTER OF S-A-CH-I
In VISA PETITION Proceedings
Decided by Acting Regional Commissioner November 18, 1958
Approved by Assistant Commissioner
Preference quota status–Section 203(a)(1) of 1952 act-Interns must meet
medical requirements of State where internship will be served. Foreign physician coming to intern at a California hospital is not eligible for
first preference quota status when neither he nor the petitioning hospital has complied with State medical requirements for the qualification and training of interns. (Matter of L-H-, 71. & N. Dec. 430, distinguished.)
BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
Discussion: This case comes forward on appeal from the district director's order of August 18, 1958, denying the petition on the ground that the beneficiary is not licensed by the State Board of Examiners to practice medicine in California.
The petitioner seeks first preference quota status under section 203(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act for the beneficiary claiming that his services are urgently needed in the United States.
The petitioner is an institution doing business as a general acute hospital in Upland, California, with gross annual income of $1,500,000.00. The petition seeks the beneficiary's services to perform the customary duties of a medical intern. He is to be paid approximately $150 per month for approximately 40 hours work per week.
The beneficiary is a 27-year-old single male, citizen of Italy, presently residing in Torino, Italy. He obtained his degree of Doctor in Medicine and Surgery on December 3, 1957, from the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Studies, Turin, Italy. The petitioner alleges the beneficiary has been practicing medicine in Italy.
The petitioner states that there is an acute shortage of interns in the United States, this being especially true in the case of small hospitals, the available interns being desirous of associating themselves with large teaching centers rather than small rural hospitals. The United States Employment Service also advises of the shortage of interns in the United States.
The United States Employment Service's Dictionary of Occupational Titles sets forth the following definition for an intern: "Performs medical duties while serving in a hospital for a specified length of time to gain practical experience immediately following graduation from a medical school, as a requirement for license to practice medicine.” The petitioning hospital is not listed in section 1330 of chapter 13, Board of Medical Examiners, as an approved hospital for the training of interns. Inquiry to the State Board of Medical Examiners, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," reveals that the petitioning hospital has not been so approved subsequent to the publishing of this list on September 11, 1957.
The California Business and Professions Code, hereinafter referred to as the “Code,” in Division 2, Chapter 5, Articles 4 and 5, sets forth, among other things, the requirements an alien graduate of a foreign medical school must fulfill prior to obtaining permission to intern in an approved hospital in the State of California. Every applicant for permission to intern in a hospital must file satisfactory documentary evidence showing the following educational qualifications:
Preliminary education. A diploma from a four-year California high school, or, its equivalent.
Premedical education. A two-year resident course of college grade, including the subjects of physics, chemistry and biology, before commencing the resident course of professional instruction in medicine. Applicants matriculating in a medical school after January 1, 1954, must show the completion of a three-year course of college grade, including the subjects of physics, chemistry and biology, before commencing the resident course of professional instruction in medicine.
Professional education. A medical curriculum extending over a period of at least four academic years in a medicine school, the course of study therein totaling at least 4,000 hours education in the subjects specified in the Business and Professions Code. If the applicant has studied in more than one medical school, he must file a satisfactory "Certificate of Medical Education,” showing subjects, hours and number of weeks completed, certified by the proper officer of each medical school attended.
Original medical diploma, as evidence of the completion of the required medical education, must accompany the application.
Evidence satisfactory to the Board that the medical school or schools referred to are recognized by the authorities in his country as qualifying its graduates for the practice of medicine must accompany the documents.
If the above-required documentary evidence is found acceptable, the applicant will be permitted to take the written examination. No foreign graduate may intern in a hospital in the State of California unless the application is approved and he passes the written examination. When the applicant passes the written examination he will then be eligible to commence an internship in an approved