Matter of L-

Cite as 7 I&N Dec. 434

MATTER OF L

In DEPORTATION Proceedings A-7947316

Decided by Board March 14, 1957

Suspension of deportation-Section 244 (a) (2), Immigration and Nationality Act-"requisite documents" must be valid immigration documents. An individual who at the time of his entry was in possession of immigration documents to which as a matter of law he was not entitled cannot be said to have been in possession of all the "requisite documents " as required by section 244 (a) (2) of the act and is ineligible for suspension of deportation under that section.

CHARGES : Order To Show Cause : Act of 1952-Section 241 (a) (1) ( 8 U. S. C. 1251 (a) (1) ) -Visa procured by fraud or misrepresentation (Act of May 26, 1924) . Act of 1952-Section 241 ( a) ( 1) (8 U. S. C. 1251 (a) (1) ) -Not eligible displaced person (section 10, Act of June 25, 1948) .

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion : The case is before us on certification from the Acting Regional Commissioner, Northeast Regional Office. The special inquiry officer granted the respondent suspension of deportation. The Acting Regional Commissioner is of the opinion that the respondent is ineligible for suspension of deportation. Respondent is a 44-year-old married male, a native of Poland, now stateless. The respondent was residing in Poland in 1939 when the Nazis came to his city. He was taken as a forced laborer and worked in such capacity from 1939 to 1942. From April 1942 to the end of 1943 he was confined to a concentration camp. He escaped and remained in hiding until January 16, 1945, when Russian troops entered and he was " liberated." As to his residence thereafter, there is a conflict in his testimony. Originally he testified that after the liberation, he had remained in Poland until about the summer of 1949 when he came to Germany. At the hearing he testified, however, that he had remained in Poland until about the end of 1948 when he went to the American sector of Vienna where he remained for about 8 months, during which he lived as a patient at a hospital. In any event, it is

434

Cite as 7 I&N Dec. 434

undisputed that the respondent made application for a visa as a displacedperson in Germany about the end of 1950. To establish that he was an eligible displaced person he was required to show that he had beenin a certain specified area prior to a certain date. To satisfy this requirement he admittedly submitted false documents showing that he had been a resident of Germany, one of the specified areas during the required time. It is admitted that respondent was not a resident of Germany during the required time. While residence in Austria during this time would apparently have satisfied the requirement of the law, the record fails to establish that such residence existed. An unsupported claim to residence in Austria contrasted with previous consistent statements in which residence in Austria was not mentioned, require the conclusion that respondent was not a resident of Austria. We believe the Government has borne its burden of establishing that the respondent was not an eligible displaced person at the time he applied for the visa. He concealed his ineligibility by furnishing false information. It, therefore, follows that the visa issued to him as a displaced person was not valid, and that it was obtained by misrepresentation. Both charges in the order to show cause were properly sustained. The respondent applied for suspension of deportation under the provisions of section 244 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U. S. C. 1254 (a) (2) ) . The special inquiry officer found respondent eligible for relief under the section in question but the Acting Regional Commissioner is of the opinion that the respondent does not come within the terms of the section. We must agree with the Acting Regional Commissioner in this. Section 244 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides, among other things, that an applicant for suspension of deportation under that section must establish that he was possessed of all the requisite documents at the time of such [last] entry into the United States.

The issue then is whether an individual who at the time of his entry was in possession of immigration documents to which as a matter of law he was not entitled should be said to have been in possession of "requisite documents." We answer this in the negative. Under the laws in effect prior to the Immigration and Nationality Act it was consistently held that a person who presented a document to which he was not entitled was to be regarded as if he did not have a document (Matter of P , A-6401882, 4, I. & N. Dec. 684 ; Matter of G- , A-8247543, 4, I. & N. Dec. 735 ; United States ex rel. Jankowski ▼. Shaughnessy, 186 F. (2d) 580, C. A. 2 ; United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 96 F. (2d) 217, C. C. A. 2). The same interpretation has been applied to situations under the Immigration and Nationality Act where the deportation, or the exclusion, of an alien was sought on

435

Cite as 7 I&N Dec. 434

the ground that he was without the necessary documents (Matter of GG , A-8949107, Int. Dec. No. 784 ; Matter of V- S , A-10536887, Int. Dec. No. 825 ; Matter of R— J—, A-8609551, Int. Dec. No. 782) . We see no reason to adopt a different interpretation, in considering the meaning of the term "requisite documents." By the term, we believe that Congress meant to show that it was necessary for a person seeking relief under section 244 (a) (2) to have been issued valid documents necessary to accomplish his entry into the United States. We believe the section is meant to apply to one who had been issued valid documents but who had become deportable because of some event which occurred subsequent to the issuance of the valid documents and before his entry or reentry into the United States. Our conclusion follows from certain facts. Congress made specific provision for the suspension of deportation of one who entered "without the proper documents" (section 244 (a) (4) ; 8 U. S. C. 1254 (a)

(4) ) . Furthermore, an alien who is deportable because he entered "without the proper documents" becomes eligible for suspension of deportation only 10 years after his entry. The section under which respondent applies requires only a 5-year period of residence. If respondent's contentions were followed it would result in the illogical conclusion that an alien who entered with documents procured by fraud would be eligible for suspension of deportation after only five years while an alien who entered with documents to which he was not entitled even though he were not at fault, or an alien who entered without any documents at all, should be required to wait ten years before becoming eligible for suspension of deportation. The unreasonableness of the respondent's contention is particularly brought out by the fact that Congress considered the obtaining of a visa by fraud such a serious matter that it made provision that an alien who had procured a visa by fraud be forever barred from the United States if he were outside the United States and applying for entry (Immigration and Nationality Act, section 212 ( a) ( 19 ) ; 8 U. S. C. 1182 (a) ( 19 ) ) . We, therefore, rule that the respondent is ineligible for suspension of deportation under section 244 (a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He does not assert that he is eligible under any other provision of the law, and we know of none which would cover his case since he does not possess the period of residence required by section 244 ( a) (4) of the act ( 8 U. S. C. 1254 (a) (4) ) . There are many favorable factors of record. The respondent is a person of excellent character, a well-regarded skilled employee, a devoted husband, and a devoted father; he has a United States citizen wife and child; he alleges his understanding and devotion to the institutions of this country. It appears that his actions in securing his visa arose out of shattered morale following the uprooting of his normal pattern of

436

Cite as 7 I&N Dec. 434

living, the killing of his parents and four siblings by the Nazis, and his desire to flee from Germany where he believed he saw the killers of his family. Despite these factors, we are without power to assist the respondent. Ifdeported from the United States, the respondent would be forever barred from reentry by the provisions of section 212 ( a) (19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The grant of voluntary departure would be of no avail to the respondent. We shall grant the request of theActing Regional Commissioner and reverse the order of the special inquiry officer and order respondent's deportation. Order : It is ordered that the order of October 2, 1956, of the special inquiry officer,be and the same is hereby revoked. It is further ordered that the respondent be deported from the United States pursuant to law on the charges set forth in the order to show cause.

437