Interim Decision #2232 

MATTER OF MEHTA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-18488770 

Decided by Board August 17, 1973 

A nonimmigrant student's 23-day incarceration resulting from conviction for the 

crimes of profanity in public and breach of peace was inconsistent with the 

purpose for which he was admitted and constituted a violation of his nonimmigrant student status where such incarceration meaningfully interrupted the 

pursuit of his academic studies (as evidenced by his lack of satisfactory progress 

toward his degree). Therefore, he is deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act for failure to comply with the conditions of 

nonimmigrant (student) status under which admitted. [Matter of C—, 9 I. & N. 

Dec. 100, distinguished.] 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9)1—Failed to comply 

with conditions ot nonimmigrant (student) status under 

which admitted. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Bernard P. Becker, Esquire 

Legal Aid Society, Inc. 

501 Park Avenue 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

John W. Bowser 

District Director 

This is an appeal from a decision of an immigration judge 

Ending the respondent deportable as charged and ordering his 

deportation. During the pendency of the appeal the Service has 

filed a motion to reopen the proceedings and remand to the 

immigration judge for further hearing. The Service motion will be 

denied and the appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 26-year-old unmarried male alien, a native 

and citizen of India, who entered the United States on or about 

September 3, 1968 as a nonimmigrant student for a temporary 

period. At a hearing before an immigration judge, at which he was 

represented by present counsel, respondent denied the truth of 

allegations 7, 8, and 9 of the order to show cause and. denied 

deportability. 

451 
Interim Decision #2232 

At the hearing the respondent admitted.that he was convicted 

in Hennepin County, Minnesota for the crimes of profanity in 

public and breach of the peace (Tr. p. 22 and Ex. 5). The record 

indicates that he was sentenced to serve 90 days in jail as a result, 

that he actually was incarcerated in the Minneapolis City Workhouse, Wayzata, Minnesota from February 14, 1973 to March 9, 

1973 (Ex.5), and that he was released on parole for the balance of 

the term (Ex. 6). The immigration judge concluded that the 

respondent had violated the conditions of his nonimmigrant student status in that Ms imprisonment was inconsistent with the 

purpose for which he was admitted. The immigration judge found 

the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

We agree with the immigration judge that the respondent's 23-

day incarceration constitutes a substantial violation of the terms 

of his student status.' Counsel's contention that the respondent's 

studies were not meaningfully interrupted thereby is contradicted 

by evidence that the respondent was not in fact making satisfactory progress toward his graduate degree, as of March 5, 1973 (Ex. 

The present case is distinguishable from Matter of C—, 9 1. & N. 

Dec. 100 (BIA, 1960), upon which counsel relies. In that case the 

alien was convicted for disorderly conduct but was not incarcerated, 

and he continued his course of study and school attendance 

without interruption.We recognized this very distinction in Matter 

of C—, supra, wherein we rejected the Service's contention that 

Matter of A—, 6 I. & N. Dec. 762 (BIA 1955) should control. Matter 

of A—, supra, involved a nonimmigrant visitor who was convicted 

and imprisoned for disorderly conduct. We held there, as we hold 

today, that incarceration for a substantial period for a criminal 

offense constitutes a violation of nonimmigrant status, in that the 

respondent is no longer pursuing the purpose for which he was 

admitted. 

We have reached the same conclusion in a case where a 

nonimmigrant visitor was not incarcerated for the offense, Matter 

of Neely and Whylie, 11 I. & N. Dec. 864 (BIA 1966). In that case we 

commented on Matter of C—, supra, to emphasize that respondent 

C's studies had not been meaningfully interrupted as a result of 

1 While we do not rely on any facts asserted in the Service motion to reopen, 

we note in passing that it alleges that on June 26, 1973 the respondent's parole 

was revoked and he was committted to serve the remaining 67 days of his 90-day 

sentence. Respondent's representative deco not deny that he is at present in 

detention. 

452 
Interim Decision #2232 

his conviction, whereas a visitor's conviction of a criminal offense 

is clearly inconsistent with his pursuit of pleasure. 

Our review of the facts and the applicable law therefore 

satisfies us that deportability has been established by clear, 

convincing, and unequivocal evidence. We concur in the findings of 

the immigration judge and his decision will be affirmed. 

ORDER: The Service motion to reopen is denied and the appeal 

is dismissed. 

453