prehend the questions put to him, and found that respondent's testimony that he did not understand the investigator is unworthy of belief. Our reading of the record leads us to the same conclusion. It should be remembered that this alien is from Canada and does not have the handicap of dissimilarity of language that exists of these cases. in many Counsel complains that respondent's statement is not used as evidence of an offense, but that the statement itself constitutes the very grounds for deportation. That is the effect of this peculiar provision of the immigration laws. The subsection providing for the "admission of the commission of a crime" was present in the 1907 act and was carried over into the 1910, 1917 and 1952 acts. (Senate Committee Report No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d sess., p. 350.) The fact that an alien can make an admission which, in itself, renders him deportable, even though he may not have been convicted of the precise crime which he admits, may be unique and seem severe, but it has been part of the immigration statutes for many years. It is because of its severity that the rules of the Jcase, supra, were established and are adhered to. We have sustained the use of preliminary statement given by the alien voluntarily in Matter of P—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 306; Matter of F, 4 I. & N. Dec. 475; Matter of P-, 4 I. & N. Dec. 684, and decisions discussed therein. The present regulation, 8 CFR 242.14,1 is the equivalent of the old regulations, 8 CFR 150 and 151, set forth in footnotes 1 and 2 to Matter of F, 4 I. & N. Dec. 475. Schoeps v. Carmichael, 177 F.2d 391 (C.A. 9, 1949), held a recorded statement of an alien made under oath was admissible under the regulation, and referred to the regulation as "sensible." Exhibit 2 shows that respondent was informed that any information he gives should be voluntary, that it might be used by the Government in any proceeding that might be instituted against him. He was asked if he was willing to make such a statement. He was placed under oath and informed as to the meaning and penalties for perjury. These warnings and admonitions serve to preserve his constitutional rights. The failure to advise him of the right to counsel at the taking of a preliminary statement does not render • the hearing unfair or invalidate the use of the statement. We find nothing in the record upon which to base a finding that his statement was not free and voluntary. 18 CFR 242.14: (c) Use of prior statements. The special inquiry officer may receive in evidence any oral or written statement which is material and relevant to any issue in the case previously made by the respondent or any other person dur ing any investigation, examination, hearing, or trial. Lodging of the additional charge was proper within the regulations.2 It is our conclusion that respondent was given a fair hearing; that he is deportable on both the lodged charge and the charge set forth in the order to show cause; and that the appeal must be dismissed. Order: It is ordered that the appeal of the alien be and is hereby dismissed. It is further ordered that the appeal of the examining officer be sustained, and so much of the special inquiry officer's order as finds the alien not subject to deportation on the charge stated in the order to show cause be reversed, and the alien is found to be subject to deportation under section 241 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, in that, at time of entry, he was an alien afflicted with psychopathic personality under section 212 (a) (4) of the Act. It is further ordered that the portion of the order of the special inquiry officer finding the alien deportable on the lodged charge be and is hereby approved. 28 CFR 242.16 (d) provides, in part: (d) Additional charges. An examining officer who has been assigned to a case may at any time during a hearing lodge additional charges of deportability, including factual allegations against the respondent. MATTER OF C Change in Nonimmigrant Status A-11808356 Decided by Regional Commissioner July 21, 1959 Approved by Assistant Commissioner December 4, 1959 Nonimmigrant-Change of status, section 248 of 1952 act-Not available to alien admitted as agricultural laborer. An alien who was admitted to the United States as an agricultural worker under the provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, not having acquired a nonimmigrant classification under section 101 (a) (15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is ineligible for change of nonimmigrant status under section 248 of the act. BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER Discussion: This case comes forward on appeal from the district director's order denying the application for change in nonimmigrant status under section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The applicant is a 26-year-old married male, a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted to the United States on December 2, 1957, at Calexico, California, as an agricultural worker for a temporary period expiring on January 13, 1958. Four extensions of authorized stay were granted, the last to expire on May 1, 1959. On May 5, 1959, the alien applied for change in nonimmigrant status under section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The change requested is from agricultural worker to industrial trainee. A petition on Form I-129B has been filed in behalf of the applicant to accord him industrial trainee classification under section 101 (a) (15) (H) (iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The record is silent on the disposition of the petition. The question to be resolved in this case is whether an alien who entered the United States as an agricultural worker under the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended, can be granted a change in nonimmigrant status under section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The alien's identification card reveals that at the time of admission he was contracted to Imperial Valley Farmers' Association for employment as an agricultural worker under Public Law 78 in Imperial, Riverside and San Diego Counties. Agricultural workers are admitted to the United States under those provisions of the regulations currently set forth in 8 CFR 214.2(k). Although an "agricultural worker" must be admissible under the general requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the authority for his admission is found not in the Immigration and Nationality Act, but in Title V of the Agricultural Act of 1949, as amended (Public Law 78, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.). This conclusion is supported by the clear import of section 405 (e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that the Act shall not be construed to "repeal, alter, or amend" Title V. Counsel for the alien contends that the purpose for which the applicant entered the United States meets the definition found in section 101 (a) (15) (H) (ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since he was coming from his foreign residence to perform temporary labor in the United States, and as a result he is a nonimmigrant. In order to have the status of nonimmigrant under section 101 (a) (15), an alien must be admitted to the United States as such and must present entry documents which are different from those required of agricultural workers. Not having complied with these admission requirements, the alien may not be considered as a nonimmigrant. For the reasons stated above, the district director's order of denial will be affirmed. Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed and the order of the district director affirmed. MATTER OF C Application for Certificate of Citizenship A-11452378 Decided by Regional Commissioner August 6, 1959 Approved by Assistant Commissioner Presumption of lawful admission-8 CFR 101.1(j)-Not applicable where no passport was issued-Exemption from passport requirement does not render applicant eligible. The presumption of lawful admission for permanent residence under 8 CFR 101.1 (j) (1) is available only to an alien who was erroneously issued a United States passport or included in the passport of his citizen parent accompanying him or to whom he was destined. Hence, a Canadian-born alien child, erroneously admitted in 1943 as a United States citizen, accompanied by a United States parent, who was not issued or included in a United States passport, cannot be presumed to have been lawfully admitted, notwithstanding that, as a Canadian national, the child was exempt from passport requirements. BEFORE THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER Discussion: This case is on appeal from a decision of the district director, dated April 27, 1959, denying the application for a certificate of citizenship upon the ground that there is no record of applicant's lawful admission for permanent residence. The record discloses that applicant was born in Canada on May 26, 1941, to a native-born citizen mother and an alien father. Her mother had resided in the United States from birth on January 8, 1920, to 1938, when she went to Canada to reside. She returned to the United States on February 20, 1943, accompanied by the applicant. On that date applicant was erroneously admitted as a citizen of the United States. Neither she nor her mother had a United States passport, nor was the applicant then in possession of an immigration visa. Her father was naturalized on September 16, 1949. Section 201(g) of the Nationality Act of 1940, in effect at the time of the applicant's birth, conferred citizenship at birth upon: A person born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, has had ten years' residence in the United States or one of its |