Matter of Hosseinpour

CHARGES: •

指控： •

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9)]—Nonimmigrant failed to II comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status under which admitted. Lodged: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]--Nonimmigrant remained longer than permitted. ON BEHALF* OF RESPONDENT: Rod L. Poirot, Esquire 701 Elm Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75202

命令：1952年《法》——第241(a)(9)条[8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9)]——非移民未能遵守其获准入境时所依据的非移民身份的条件。 补充：1952年《法》——第241(a)(2)条[8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]——非移民停留超过许可期限。 答复人代表：Rod L. Poirot, Esquire 701 Elm Street, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75202

In a decision dated August 29, 1974, the immigration- judge found the respondent deportable on both of the above charges and granted him the privilege of departing voluntarily from the United States within 64 days in lieu of deportation. The respondent has appealed froni that decision. The appeal will be dismissed. The alien respondent is a native and a citizen of Iran who entered the United States in May 1970 as a nonimmigrant student. He obtained authorization to remain in the United States until May 25, 1973. In February 1973, the respondent filed an application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality. Act. On June 21, 1973, the district director denied that application and informed the respondent that he would be permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily on or before July 21, 1973 without the institution of deportation proceedings. The respondent has not departed. -

在1974年8月29日的一项决定中，移民法官认定答复人就上述两项指控均可被驱逐出境，并给予其在64天内自愿离开美国以代替驱逐出境的特权。答复人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将被驳回。 外籍答复人是伊朗国民和公民，于1970年5月作为非移民学生进入美国。他获得授权在美国停留至1973年5月25日。1973年2月，答复人依据《移民与国籍法》第245条提交了调整身份申请。1973年6月21日，地区主任驳回了该申请，并通知答复人，允许其在1973年7月21日或之前自愿离开美国，而不启动驱逐出境程序。答复人未离开。

The immigration judge concluded that the respondent was deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the Act for failure to comply with the condi- tions of his nonimmigrant status because he submitted an application for adjustment of status. That conclusion was based on language in Matter of Gallares, 14 L & N. Dec. 250 (BIA 1972), which indicates that a nonimmigrant who seeks adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act thereby ceases to maintain status as a lawful nonimmigrant. We believe that our language in Gallares concerning the effect of an applica- tion for adjustment of status upon the maintenance of valid nonimmi- grant status was overly broad. As originally enacted, section 245(a) of the 1952 Act contained an express provision that: `!Any alien who shall file an application for adjustment of his status under this section shall thereby terminate his nonimmigrant status." Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, § 245, 66 Stat. 217. The 1958 amendments to Section 245 eliminated this provision. Act of August 21, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-700, § 1, 72 Stat. 699. Since the legislative history of the 1958 amendments indicates that Congress was well aware of the provision automatically terminating nonimmigrant status, we must assume that the deletion of that provision was inten- tional. S. Rept. No. 2133, 85th Cong., 2d Sees., 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. New: 3698, 3701. See also 2 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immi- gration Law and ProCedure § 7.7(b) (1975). Moreover, courts have held that a desire to remain in this country permanently :.n.accordance with the law, should the opportunity to do so present itself, is not necessarily inconsistent with lawful nonimmigrant status. Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 195'1); Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960). See also Matter of H—R—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 651 (B.C. 1958). To the extant that our language in Matter of Gallares, supra, indi- cates that an application for adjustment of status automatically termi- nates lawful nonimmigrant status, that case is modified. We now hold that the filing of an application for adjustment of status is not necessar- ily inconsistent with the maintenance of , lawful nonimmigrant status. Evidence introduced at the hearing indicates that the respondent has been enrolled in school full time since his arrival in 1970 (Exhs. 6a, fib, 6e, 7). The respondent's testimony indicated that he intended to remain a student even though he had applied for permanent resident status, and that he was willing to return home when his studies were completed if ordered to do so (Tr. pp. 46-7). The respondent also stated that he had not engaged :in unauthorized employment, and that he was supporting himself and paying child support with funds from his family (Tr. p. 60). The Service apparently based the out of status charge, solely on the fact that the respondent applied for adjustment of status. We conclude that the Service has failed to establish by dear, convincing, and unequivocal

移民法官认定， respondent 因提交了调整身份申请而未遵守其非移民身份的条件，故依据该法第241(a)(9)条应被驱逐出境。该结论基于 Matter of Gallares, 14 L & N. Dec. 250 (BIA 1972) 中的表述，该案指出，依据该法第245条寻求调整身份的非移民因此不再维持其合法非移民身份。我们认为，我们在 Gallares 案中关于调整身份申请对维持有效非移民身份之影响的表述过于宽泛。 1952年法案第245(a)条最初颁布时含有一项明确规定：“任何依据本条提交身份调整申请的外国人，即因此终止其非移民身份。” Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, § 245, 66 Stat. 217。1958年对第245条的修正删除了该规定。Act of August 21, 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-700, § 1, 72 Stat. 699。由于1958年修正案的立法史表明国会充分知悉该自动终止非移民身份的规定，我们必须推定删除该规定是有意为之。S. Rept. No. 2133, 85th Cong., 2d Sees., 1958 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. New: 3698, 3701。另见 2 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and ProCedure § 7.7(b) (1975)。 此外，法院已认定，希望依法永久留在本国（若机会出现）并不必然与合法非移民身份相矛盾。Brownell v. Carija, 254 F.2d 78, 80 (D.C. Cir. 195'1); Bong Youn Choy v. Barber, 279 F.2d 642, 646 (C.A. 9, 1960)。另见 Matter of H—R—, 7 I. & N. Dec. 651 (B.C. 1958)。 就我们在上述 Matter of Gallares 案中的表述表明调整身份申请自动终止合法非移民身份而言，该案被修改。我们现在认定，提交调整身份申请并不必然与维持合法非移民身份相矛盾。 听证中出示的证据表明， respondent 自1970年抵达以来一直全日制在校就读（Exhs. 6a, fib, 6e, 7）。 respondent 的证言表明，尽管他已申请永久居民身份，他仍打算继续做学生，并且如果被命令这样做，他愿意在学业完成后回国（Tr. pp. 46-7）。 respondent 还陈述，他未从事未经授权的就业，并且他正用家人的资金养活自己并支付子女抚养费（Tr. p. 60）。 Service 显然仅基于 respondent 申请调整身份这一事实提出身份失效的指控。我们认定，Service 未能以明确、令人信服且毫不含糊的

evidence that the respondent is deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the Act for failure to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status. Nevertheless, the record establishes that the respondent's authorized stay in the United States expired on May 25, 1973 (Exh. 3). The respondent received no extension of his authorized stay beyond that date (Exh. 3; Tr. p. 48). Consequently, the respondent's deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Act as a nonimmigrant who remained in the United States after the expiration, of his authorized stay has been established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence. Counsel contends that the respondent is not deportable as an overstay because by charging him with being out of status the Service in effect precluded him from obtaining an extension of his stay as a nonimmigrant student. The answer to this contention is threefold: (1) there is no evidence in the record that the respondent ever applied for an extension of his stay as a nonimmigrant student, (2) the order to show cause charging the respondent with being out of status was not issued until after the expiration of the respondent's authorized stay, and (3) the decision whether or not to extend a nonimmigrant's authorized stay is within the sole discretion of the district director and is not reviewable by the immigration judge or by us. Matter of Halabi, 15 I. & N. Dec. (BIA 1974). Finally, counsel contends that the immigration judge should , have reinstated the respondent to student status. However, the immigration judge had no jurisdiction to reinstate the respondent's student status. Matter of Gallares, supra; see Matter of Halabi, supra; Matter of Sour- bis, .111. & N. Dec. 335 (BIA 1965). The respondent is deportable as a nonimmigrant who remained be- yond the authorized length of his stay. The appeal will be dismissed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. Further order: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the re- spondent is permitted to depart from, the United States voluntarily within 64 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.

证据证明答复人因未能遵守其非移民身份的条件而依据《法》第241(a)(9)条可被驱逐出境。 然而，记录表明答复人在美国的获准停留于1973年5月25日届满（Exh. 3）。答复人未获得在该日期之后延长其获准停留的许可（Exh. 3；Tr. p. 48）。因此，答复人作为非移民在其获准停留期限届满后仍留在美国，依据《法》第241(a)(2)条可被驱逐出境，已由明确、令人信服且毫不含糊的证据证明。 律师主张，答复人不应作为逾期停留者被驱逐出境，因为服务局指控其身份不符，实际上使其无法获得非移民学生停留延期。对此主张的答复有三点：（1）记录中没有证据表明答复人曾申请延长其非移民学生停留期限，（2）指控答复人身份不符的说明理由令是在答复人获准停留期限届满后才签发的，以及（3）是否延长非移民的获准停留属于地区主任的唯一裁量权，移民法官或本委员会均不可审查。Halabi案，15 I. & N. Dec.（BIA 1974）。 最后，律师主张移民法官应当恢复答复人的学生身份。然而，移民法官无权恢复答复人的学生身份。上述Gallares案；见上述Halabi案；Sourbis案，.111. & N. Dec. 335（BIA 1965）。 答复人作为停留超过获准期限的非移民可被驱逐出境。上诉将被驳回。 命令：上诉驳回。 进一步命令：根据移民法官的命令，允许答复人自本命令之日起64天内自愿离开美国，或经地区主任批准的任何延长期限内离开；如未能如此离开，则答复人应按照移民法官的命令被驱逐出境。