Matter of Tong

Interim Decision #2668

临时决定第2668号

In Deportation Proceedings

驱逐出境程序

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Mary L. Sfasciotti, Esquire Oliver H. Claypooldr. Sfasciotti, Stern & Sfasciotti Trial Attorney 5825 Sixth Avenue Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140

代表答辩人： 代表移民局： Mary L. Sfasciotti，律师 Oliver H. Claypooldr. Sfasciotti, Stern & Sfasciotti 庭审律师 5825 Sixth Avenue Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140

This case presents an appeal from a decision of the immigration judge on August 8, 1977, finding the respondent deportable on the lodged charge and granting him the privilege of voluntary departure, with an alternate order of deportation to Hong Kong. The immigration judge denied the respondent's application for adjustment of status, pursuant to the provisions of section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. The appeal will be dismissed. the respondent is an unmarried native and citizen of Hong Kong who has resided in the United States since August 1971_ He is the ben- eficiary of a visa petition filed by his lawful permanent resident mother

本案系对移民法官1977年8月8日决定的上诉，该决定认定答辩人依追加指控可被驱逐出境，并给予其自愿离境的特权，另附驱逐至中国香港的替代命令。移民法官根据经修正的《移民与国籍法》第245条的规定，驳回了答辩人的调整身份申请。上诉将被驳回。 答辩人是未婚的中国香港本地人和公民，自1971年8月起居住在美国。他是其合法永久居民母亲提交的签证申请的受益人，

and approved by the District Director in April 1975. The respondent was initially authorized to remain here as a student until June 15, 1976. He was granted the privilege of departing voluntarily by October 26, 1976, without the issuance of an Order to Show Cause, but failed to leave this country. Deportability has been established by clear, convinc- ing, and unequivocal evidence. The immigration judge noted the respondent's testimony that he has been self-employed since he opened a used car dealership known as Eddie's Auto.Sales on May 1, 1976 (Tr. p. 8), without permission from the Service (Tr. p. 13). The immigration judge found that the respon- dent, therefore, is precluded from qualifying for adjustment of status under the provisions of section 245(c) of the Act. Counsel contends on appeal that the respondent did not commence his business until one year after graduation from college in 1975 and was no longer a student in May 1976. Counsel also contends that the immigration judge failed to address the issue as to whether self-employment constitutes unauthorized em- ployment, as that term appears in section 245, and thereby precludes adjustment of status to aliens who have engaged in unauthorized em- ployment. The Service contends that the term "employment," in section 245 of the Act, includes within its meaning "self-employment" (p. 8). Section 245(c) of the Act, as amended by P. L. 94-571, 90 Stat, 2703, effective January 1, 1977, provides, in pertinent part, "The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to an alien . . . who hereafter con tinues in or accepts unauthorized employment prior to filing an applica- tion for adjustment of status. . . ." Counsel in her first brief contended that the respondent's "status approximates an investor and not an `employee' as that term is commonly used." It is the official position of the Service, however, that it considers unauthorized self-employment by a beneficiary of an approved relative visa petition as "unauthorized employment" within the purview of section 245(c). We are in agreement with this position.' Cf. Matter of eh,en g , Interim Decision 2623 (BIA 1977). In the latter case, it was noted that on July 18, 1977, the Central Office of the Service issued an instruction to all field offices whereby nunc pro tune authorization to accept employment was to be granted to any alien who was the beneficiary of a visa petition filed before January 10, 1977, and who•could, under 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(2), have properly filed an application for adjustment with that visa petition. In the instant ease, the respondent cannot possibly benefit from the Service instrac-

该申请于1975年4月由地区主任批准。答辩人最初获准作为学生留美至1976年6月15日。他获准在1976年10月26日前自愿离境，且未签发说明理由令，但他未能离开美国。可驱逐性已由明确、令人信服且毫不含糊的证据确立。 移民法官注意到答辩人的证词，称其自1976年5月1日开设名为Eddie's Auto Sales的二手车经销店以来一直自雇（庭审记录第8页），且未获移民局许可（庭审记录第13页）。移民法官因此认定，答辩人依该法第245(c)条的规定被排除在调整身份资格之外。律师在上诉中主张，答辩人直到1975年大学毕业一年后才开始其业务，且1976年5月时已不再是学生。律师还主张，移民法官未能处理自雇是否构成第245条中出现的“无授权就业”这一问题，从而排除已从事无授权就业的外国人调整身份。移民局主张，该法第245条中的“employment”一词在其含义中包括“self-employment”（第8页）。 经P. L. 94-571，90 Stat. 2703修正、于1977年1月1日生效的该法第245(c)条规定，相关部分为：“本条各项规定不适用于……此后在提交调整身份申请之前继续从事或接受无授权就业的外国人……”律师在其第一份辩护状中主张，答辩人的“身份近似于投资者，而非通常使用意义上的‘雇员’”。然而，移民局的官方立场是，其将经批准的亲属签证申请受益人从事的无授权自雇视为第245(c)条范围内的“无授权就业”。我们同意这一立场。¹ 参见Matter of eh,en g，临时决定第2623号（BIA 1977）。在后一案件中，有人指出，1977年7月18日，移民局中央办公室向所有外地办事处发出指示，据此，凡在1977年1月10日之前提交签证申请的受益人，且根据8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(2)本可随该签证申请妥善提交调整身份申请的任何外国人，均应获得溯及既往的接受就业授权。在本案中，答辩人不可能从移民局指示中受益，

Interim- Decision watib

临时决定watib

tion because he is a native of Hong Kong and a visa was never im- mediately available to him before January 10, 1977. The word "employment" is a common one, generally used with rela- tion to the most common pursuits, and therefore ought to be received as understood in common parlance. The word "employment" is also defined as meaning the act of being employed for one's self (30 C.J.S. 682). It should be self-evident, in view of all of the foregoing, that any and all types of employment taken without proper authority constitute unau- thorized employment. A nonimmigrant alien has the obligation either to depart at the expiration of his authorized period of stay, or to obtain a proper exten- sion of that stay. In order to establish an alien's deportability as an "overstay," the Service need only show that the alien was admitted as a nonimmigrant ". . . for a temporary period, that the period has elapsed, and that the nonimmigrant has not departed." See Milande v. INS, 484 F.2d 776 (7 Cir. 1973); Matter of Teberen, Interim Decision 2498 (BIA 1976). It should be clear that the respondent, no longer a student, is an "overstay" in this country and has remained in the United States illeg- ally. Upon review of the recur d, we find that the decision of the immigra- tion judge was correct in the circumstances of this case. He granted the respondent a period of two months for voluntary departure. We have held that in those eases in which a period exceeding 30"days has been granted, the respondent will be given 30 days from the date of our decision in which to depart voluntarily. See Matter of Chowliaris, Interim Decision 2572 (BIA 1977). The District Director, however, is authorized to extend that period in his discretion. See 8 C.F.R. 244.2. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. FURTHER ORDER: The respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by the District Director; and in the event of failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the immigration judge's order.

因为他是中国香港本地人，且在1977年1月10日之前从未有签证可立即提供给他。 “employment”一词是一个常用词，通常用于与最常见的职业相关，因此应按普通用语中的理解予以接受。“employment”一词也被定义为为自己受雇的行为（30 C.J.S. 682）。鉴于上述所有情况，应当不言自明的是，任何及所有未经适当授权而从事的各类就业均构成无授权就业。 非移民外国人有义务在其获准停留期届满时离境，或取得该停留期的适当延期。为确立外国人作为“逾期居留者”的可驱逐性，移民局只需证明该外国人曾作为非移民“……在临时期间”获准入境、该期间已届满，且该非移民未离境。参见Milande v. INS, 484 F.2d 776 (7 Cir. 1973)；Matter of Teberen，临时决定第2498号（BIA 1976）。应当明确的是，答辩人已不再是学生，是在本国的“逾期居留者”，并非法留在美国。 经审查记录，我们认定移民法官的决定在本案情况下是正确的。他给予答辩人两个月的自愿离境期。我们已裁定，在给予超过30天期限的案件中，答辩人将获得自我们决定之日起30天的时间自愿离境。参见Matter of Chowliaris，临时决定第2572号（BIA 1977）。但地区主任有权酌情延长该期限。参见8 C.F.R. 244.2。 因此，上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。 进一步命令：答辩人获准自本命令之日起30天内或地区主任可能批准的超过该时间的任何延长期内自愿离开美国；如未能如此离境，答辩人应按照移民法官的命令被驱逐出境。