Matter of M-

MATTER OF M—

M—案

In DEPORTATION Proceedings

在驱逐出境程序中

A-10291348

A-10291348

Decided by Board October :28, 1960

由委员会于1960年10月28日裁定

False testimony—Section 101(f)(6)—Timely retraction overcomes bar to relief. An alien is not barred by section 101(f) (6) of the Immigration and Nation- ality Act from establishing good moral character where he has made a vol- untary and timely retraction of attempted false testimony in statement made before immigration officer.

虚假证言——第101(f)(6)条——及时撤回可克服获得救济的障碍。 外国人如果在移民官面前所作的陈述中试图提供虚假证言，但自愿且及时地予以撤回，则《移民与国籍法》第101(f)(6)条并不禁止其确立良好道德品格。

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)]—Nonimmi- grant crewman—remained longer.

命令：1952年法案——第241(a)(2)条[8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]——非移民船员——逾期居留。

BEFORE THE BOARD

委员会面前

DISCUSSION: The respondent appeals from a decision of the special inquiry officer denying him the privilege of voluntary de- parture in lieu of deportation. Deportability on the charge laid under section 241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is conceded (8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)). The respondent, a native and citizen of Italy, 82 years of ago, last entered the United States on July 10, 1956, through the port of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. He has remained continuously in the United States beyond the period of his admission as a seaman. He is deportable on the charge stated in the order to show cause. The respondent has applied for the privilege of voluntary de- parture in lieu of deportation (section 244(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254(e)). The special inquiry officer relies upon the provisions of section 101(f) (6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f) (6)1 to sustain his conclusion that the respondent is statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure. Counsel on appeal urges error in this conclusion. The special inquiry officer finds that the respondent has not es- tablished good moral character for the period required by the statute because he (respondent) "has given false testimony" for the purpose of obtaining a benefit under the immigration laws. The basis for

讨论：被申请人就特别调查官的一项决定提出上诉，该决定拒绝给予其替代驱逐的自愿离境特权。根据《移民与国籍法》第241(a)(2)条（8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)）提出的指控，可驱逐性已被承认。 被申请人系意大利本土出生公民，82岁，最后一次于1956年7月10日经佛罗里达州劳德代尔堡港口进入美国。其在作为海员获准入境期限届满后仍连续留在美国。根据说明理由令中所述的指控，其可被驱逐。 被申请人已申请替代驱逐的自愿离境特权（《移民与国籍法》第244(e)条，8 U.S.C. 1254(e)）。特别调查官依据《移民与国籍法》第101(f)(6)条（8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(6)1）的规定，支持其关于被申请人依法不具备自愿离境资格的结论。上诉律师主张该结论有误。 特别调查官认定，被申请人未能在法律规定的期间内证明其具有良好道德品质，因为其（被申请人）“为获得移民法下的利益而提供了虚假证言”。依据是

118

118

this finding is a statement taken from the respondent by an immi- gration officer at the International Airport, San Juan, Puerto Rico, on July 24, 1960. The respondent in his statement to the immigra- tion officer attempted to establish that he was an alien lawfully residing in the United States. However, prior to the completion of the statement he volunteered that he had entered the United States unlawfully. Counsel, inter alia, urges that respondent's statement is not "false testimony" as a matter of law because there was "timely recantation" of his own volition and without delay. "Testimony" is the evidence given by a competent witness under oath or affirmation, as distinguished from writings and other sources (Edelstein v. United States, 149 Fed. 636). We have held that where an alien in an immigration proceeding testifies falsely under oath as to a material fact but voluntarily and without prior exposure of his false testimony comes forward and corrects his testimony, per- jury has not been committed and the charge based thereon is not sustained (Matter of 1?-1i—, 3-823, B.I.A., Dec. 13, 1949, and cases cited). Respondent's testimony in the statement taken from him on July 24, 1960, falls squarely within the purview of our holding in Matter of R—R----, supra. The respondent voluntarily and prior to any exposure of the attempted fraud corrected his testimony that he was an alien lawfully residing in the United States. We find no basis for applying a different rule with respect to a voluntary recantation without prior exposure when an application for discretionary relief under section 244(e) is involved than we apply when the issue is one of deportation or exclusion based upon the commission of prejury. We have held that the "false testimony" contemplated by section 101(f) (6), supra, must be given under oath? By the same token, an oath or affirmation is an essential element of the crime of perjury. As a matter of law, the respondent is not barred by the provisions of section 101(1) (6), supra, from establishing his good moral char- acter. We conclude that he has met the burden of establishing good moral character for the statutory period. We also conclude that he is statutorily eligible for the relief he seeks. Applying the criteria set forth in Matter of M—, 4-626, B.I.A.. Apr. 22, 1952, the respond-

该认定是1960年7月24日在波多黎各圣胡安国际机场由一名移民官员从被调查人处取得的一份陈述。被调查人在向移民官员所作的陈述中试图证明他是合法居住在美国的外国人。然而，在陈述完成之前，他主动表示他曾非法进入美国。 律师除其他事项外主张，被调查人的陈述在法律上不构成“虚假证言”，因为其系出于本人自愿且未经迟延地作出了“及时撤回”。 “证言”是指有资格的证人在宣誓或郑重声明下提供的证据，区别于书面文件和其他来源（Edelstein v. United States, 149 Fed. 636）。我们曾裁定，如果外国人在移民程序中就重大事实在宣誓下作虚假证言，但自愿且在其虚假证言事先未被揭露的情况下主动出面更正其证言，则未构成伪证，据此提出的指控不能成立（Matter of 1?-1i—, 3-823, B.I.A., Dec. 13, 1949，及所引案件）。 被调查人于1960年7月24日从其处取得的陈述中的证言，完全属于我们在上述Matter of R—R----案中所作裁定的范围。被调查人自愿且在任何揭露其未遂欺诈之前，更正了其关于自己是合法居住在美国的外国人的证言。 我们认定，在涉及第244(e)条下的酌情救济申请时，对于事先未被揭露的自愿撤回，没有依据适用与我们在基于实施伪证而作出的驱逐出境或不准入境问题时所适用的规则不同的规则。我们曾裁定，上述第101(f)(6)条所设想的“虚假证言”必须在宣誓下作出？同样，宣誓或郑重声明是伪证罪的必备要素。 在法律上，被调查人并不因上述第101(1)(6)条的规定而被禁止证明其良好道德品质。我们认定，他已履行了在法定期间内证明良好道德品质的举证责任。我们还认定，他在法律上有资格获得其所寻求的救济。适用Matter of M—, 4-626, B.I.A.. Apr. 22, 1952中规定的标准，被调查-

'Mutter of 0- 6-208. B.I.A., July 13,, 1054. There is a conflict between the respondent's testimony and the transcript of respondent's statement as to whether the respondent was actually under oath'when the statement was taken. We will accept the respondent's testimony during the course of the hearing that he was actually under oath in light of our finding that there was an effective recantation.

'Matter of 0- 6-208. B.I.A., July 13,, 1054。就被申请人在陈述被取得时是否实际处于宣誓之下，被申请人的证言与陈述记录之间存在冲突。鉴于我们认定存在有效的撤回，我们将接受被申请人在听证过程中关于其实际处于宣誓之下的证言。

119

119

ent's application for voluntary departure will be denied as a mattei of administrative discretion. An appropriate order will be entered. ORDER: It is directed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed

人的自动离境申请将作为行政自由裁量事项予以拒绝。将作出适当的命令。 命令：兹指示，上诉予以且特此驳回

120

120