Interim Decision #1513 

MATrEn or SOUR= 

In DeportedOn Proceedings 

A-14467-110 

A-14407111 

Decided by Board October 4, 1965 

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. 

examem: 

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 deporthtion on the charge that after admiscion 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. 

335 
Interim Decision #1513 

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 

lire 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) statts in part as follows: 

'The admission to the 'United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant alias be 

for such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by 

regulations prescribe, • • •. „ 

3 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 applica-, 

tions for extensions of temporary stay (8 CFR 3.1(d) (1)). 

• We find no error on the part of, the special inquiry officer not do 

we find any evidence that the respondents have been denied due pro- 

• cess 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. 

336