Application for extension of stay and permission to transfer is denied an exchange visitor who was admitted to the United States in 1960 for residency training in pediatrics since the 5 years she has been here in such status should have provided ample opportunity to complete her original objective had she followed a progressive, integrated program; the last 3 years she has occupied a staffing position (instructor) in the capacity of trainer rather than trainee, as intended by the program; her present application likewise relates to the position of teacher or lecturer; and, further, the Department of State, after consultation, has recommended adversely in the matter.

Discussion: The applicant, a citizen and resident of the Philippines, entered the United States as an exchange visitor at Honolulu, Hawaii, on July 22, 1960, for the purpose of accepting a residency in pediatrics at the Philadelphia General Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, until June 30, 1961. She then transferred as a fellow in pediatric endocrinology to The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, to June 30, 1962, after which she became an instructor in the Department of Pediatrics, Howard Medical School, Washington, D. C., until June 30, 1964. After that, she was an instructor in maternal and child health, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, to June 30, 1965. She has now requested an extension of stay and permission to transfer to Columbia University for the purpose of being an assistant in the Department of Pediatrics to June 30, 1966. Applicant's original training objective is not clear, but it appears it was either for residency training in pediatrics or a residency program in preventive medicine with emphasis on public health. In either case, had she followed a progressive, integrated program, the five years she had been in the United States should have provided ample opportunity to complete her original objective. Further, a

resume prepared by applicant shows she has been an instructor for the last three of her five years in the United States. This is clearly a staffing position in which she is the trainer rather than the trainee, the latter role being the one it was intended she should occupy as a participant in the program. The appointment to which this application relates likewise appears to be as a teacher or lecturer.

The Department of State has been consulted in this case and, for the reasons discussed above, concludes applicant has completed her training objective and that the purpose of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act will not be served until she returns to her homeland to share her American training and experience for the benefit of her people and the promotion of their understanding of the United States. That Department recommended against both the transfer and extension of stay.

ORDER: It is ordered that the application be and is hereby denied.

་ ་

Neither the Board of Immigration Appeals nor the special inquiry officer has any jurisdiction over the adjudication of an application for extension of temporary stay; such administrative consideration and determination rests solely with the District Director.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952-Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2) ]—Nonimmigrant-remained longer (both respondents).

This is an appeal from an order entered by the special inquiry officer on June 4, 1965 granting the respondents voluntary departure in lieu of deportation as aliens who after entry as nonimmigrant visitors have remained longer than permitted. Exceptions have been taken to the finding of deportability. The respondents, an adult male and his wife, concede that they are aliens, natives and citizens of Greece who entered the United States through the port of New York on October 28, 1963, at which time they were admitted as nonimmigrant visitors for pleasure. They declined to admit that they are subject to deportation on the charge that after admission as a nonimmigrant visitor pursuant to section 101 (a) (15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act they have remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted.

Applications for extensions of temporary stay submitted by both respondents state that their periods of authorized stay in the United States would expire on March 4, 1965. The applications are endorsed to show that their request for further extensions were denied and that they were granted until April 15, 1965 to depart from the United States. They were notified on March 15, 1965 that their applications for extension of stay had been denied (Exs. 4 & 6). The evidence of record affirmatively establishes that the respondents are deportable as charged in their respective orders to show cause.

Counsel maintains that the special inquiry officer commited error in admitting into evidence the documents which establish the respondents' deportability (Exs. 3, 4, 5 & 6). Counsel maintains that the documents are the crux of the Government's case and that the respondents were denied due process when the special inquiry officer refused them an opportunity to cross-examine the maker of the instruments. Counsel also maintains that the extensions of stay for the respondents were erroneously denied by the District Director.

Adjudications of applications for extension of temporary stay are matters solely for the administrative consideration and determination of the District Director. The special inquiry officer does not have jurisdiction to make any determination as to the propriety of the District Director's decision. Section 214(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184) states in part as follows:

The admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe,

8 CFR 103.1(b) confers upon a District Director the sole authority to determine all petitions and applications for extensions of stay. 8 CFR 214.1(a) provides in part that a nonimmigrant may be granted or denied an extension of his period of temporary admission*** without appeal *** by a *** District Director ***. Furthermore, this Board has no jurisdiction over adjudications of applications for extensions of temporary stay (8 CFR 3.1(d) (1)).

We find no error on the part of the special inquiry officer nor do we find any evidence that the respondents have been denied due process during the course of the hearing. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: It is directed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

Absent substantial equities, adjustment of status under section 245, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is denied, as a matter of discretion, to an alien from a nonquota country who prior to, and shortly after, his arrival in the United States secured documents needed to support his application for adjustment of status, since he sought and gained entry into this country with a preconceived intention to establish permanent residence here. (Matter of Barrios, Int. Dec. No. 1264, distinguished.). CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952-Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Remained longer-visitor.

An order entered by the special inquiry officer on March 18, 1965 grants the respondent's application for a change of status to that of a permanent resident alien under the provisions of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255). The trial attorney appeals from this decision. He excepts to the conclusion that relief under section 245 (supra) is warranted in this case.

The respondent, a native and citizen of El Salvador, unmarried, 41 years of age, last entered the United States through the port of San Ysidro, California on or about April 25, 1964. He was admitted as a temporary visitor and thereafter authorized to remain in the United States in that status until August 10, 1964. He was granted permission to depart voluntarily from the United States on or before December 2, 1964. He has remained in the United States subsequent to December 2, 1964 and he concedes that he is deportable as charged in the order to show cause.

The only issue presented by the case is whether the respondent's application for status as a permanent resident alien under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act merits the favorable exercise of the Attorney General's discretion. The record discloses that the respondent applied for a nonimmigrant visa in October