Interim Decision #2228 

MATTER OF VALDOVINOS 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-10630609 

Decided by Board September 11, 1973 

A lawful permanent resident alien's brief departure to Mexico, withthe intention 

of assisting aliens in entering the United States unlawfully, constitutes a 

meaningful interruption of his residence (Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449); 

hence, upon his return to this country he made an entry within the meaning of 

section 101(a)(13) of the Immigration and Nationality Act upon which to predicate a ground of deportability. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(13) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(13)]—Prior to entry, 

knowingly and for gain encouraged, induced, assisted, 

abetted or aided any other alien to enter or to try to 

enter the United Mateo in violation of law. 

This is an appeal from a decision of an immigration judge, 

dated December 8, 1972, which found the respondent deportable 

and directed his deportation. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 50-year-old male alien who is a native and 

citizen of Mexico. He was admitted for permanent residence on 

January 24, 1957. On March 4, 1971, he departed the United States 

for Mexico and returned the same day as a "returning resident 

alien:' However, shortly after entering the United States he was 

arrested for willfully or knowingly encouraging or inducing the 

entry into the United States of an alien not entitled to enter or 

reside within the United States in violation of section 274(aX4) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(4)); and 

knowingly transporting an alien who is in the United States in 

violation of section 274(aX2) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)). On May 

5, 1971, the respondent plead guilty, and was found guilty, of violating section 274(aX2) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(aX2)). He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and is presently incarcerated 

at a Federal Correctional Institution. 

At a deportation hearing on December 5, 1972, the respondent 

admitted that he entered into an agreement with three Mexican 

438 
Interim Decision #2228 

citizens to transport them to Los Angeles, California. He conceded 

that he had transported them within the United States knowing 

that they were in the United States illegally. However, he emphatically denied that he had knowingly and for gain, encouraged, 

induced, assisted, abetted, or aided anyone to enter or try to enter 

the United States in violation of the law. He asserted that he had 

never seen or contacted the Mexican citizens prior to meeting 

them in Calexico, California. 

The respondent's testimony concerning his initial contact with 

the three Mexican citizens directly contradicts the factual account 

two of the Mexican citizens gave to an immigration officer. Both 

stated, under oath, that the respondent had met them in Tijuana, 

B.C., Mexico on March 3, 1971 and made arrangements to meet 

them the next day in Mexicali, B.C., Mexico. They stated that they 

met the respondent on the following day and he instructed them 

to cross the border into the United States and he would pick them 

up in Calexico, California. Both. Mexican citizens stated that the 

respondent provided them with entry cards and, in return for 

respondent's assistance, they paid him $100 each. 

After carefully evaluating the entire record, we sustain the 

immigration judge's finding that on March 3, 1971, the respondent 

did knowingly and for financial gain, induce and assist three aliens 

in entering the United States illegally; and on March 4, 1971, the 

respondent departed the United States with the intent to further 

assist the aliens in entering this country. 

The only issue remaining which pertains to the deportability of 

the respondent under section 241(a)(13) is whether he performed 

his illegal activities prior to making an "entry" into the United 

States. Since the respondent was admitted for permanent residence before his March 4, 1971 departure, he can be subject to the 

consequences of an "entry" upon his return only if that departure 

constitutes a meaningful interruption of his resident alien status, 

Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 874 U.S. 449 (1963).1 

In analyzing whether a departure from the United States is a 

meaningful interruption of residence, the Supreme Court in Rosenberg v. Fleuti stated that "if the purpose of leaving the country 

is to accomplish some object which is itself contrary to some policy 

reflected in our immigration laws, it would appear that the 

interruption of residence thereby occurring would properly be 

The United States Supreme Court stated that if a trip is "innocent, casual 

and brief, it is consistent with all the discernible signs of congressional purpose 

to hold that the 'departure ... was not intended' within the meaning and 

ameliorative intent of the exception to section 101(a)(13)." 

439 
Interim Decision #2228 

regarded as meaningful." 2Although we recognize that the reason 

for departing the country is only one of several major factors 

which should be considered in determining whether a departure is 

a meaningful interruption of residence, 3we conclude that this one 

factor, standing alone, can be deemed sufficient to warrant a 

finding that a meaningful interruption of residence has occurred. 4 

In the present case, we conclude that respondent's excursion to 

Mexico from the United States was neither innocent nor casual. It 

was not innocent in that the primary reason respondent departed 

the United States was for the purpose of violating the immigration 

law. In a case involving a similar factual situation, the Fifth 

Circuit Court of Appeals in Solis Davila v. INS, 456 F.2d 424 

(C.A.5, 1972) stated that a departure from the United States for 

the express purpose of unlawfully smuggling several aliens into 

the country is "precisely the activity for which Fleuti provides no 

relief." We agree with that conclusion. 5 

The respondent's trip to Mexico was a planned excursion which 

was designed to benefit the respondent pecuniarily. It was neither 

unforeseen nor executed by chance. Rather, it was prearranged 

and deliberate. The respondent made definite plans on March 3, 

1971 to meet three Mexican citizens on the following day in 

Mexico. The time and place that they were to rendezvous was 

designated in advance. Therefore, it is evident that respondent's 

departure from the United States on March 4, 1971 was not casual 

within the meaning of Fleuti.6 Accordingly, since the trip was 

neither innocent nor casual, we conclude that respondent's departure was a meaningful interruption of his status as a permanent 

resident and his return to the United States on March 4, 1971 

constituted an "entry" as defined by section 101(aX13) of the Act. 

2Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462 (1963); Accord, Matter of ValenciaBarajas, 13 I. & N. Dec. 369 (BIA, 1969). 

In Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 462 (1963), the Supreme Court enumerated three relevant factors which should be considered: (1) The length of time 

the alien is absent. (2) The purpose for leaving the country. (3) The necessity of 

obtaining travel documents. 

4See generally Yatun-lacguez v. INS, 440 F.2d 701 (C.A. 5, 1971); Matter of 

V alencia-Barajas, 13 I. & N. Dec. 369 (BIA, 1969); Matter of Corral-Fragoso, 11 I. 

& N. Dec. 478 (BIA, 1966). 

5 See generally Vargas-Banuelos v. INS, 466 F.2d 1371 (C.A. 5, 1972) and 

Palatian v. INS, Civil No. 73-197 (C.D. Cal. April 18, 1973). Both cases involve the 

formation of a criminal intent subsequent to departing from the United States. 

In the present case, the respondent left the country with the intention of 

violating the immigration law; therefore, this case is readily distinguishable 

from Vargas-Banuelos and Palatian 

6 See aenerally Matter of Janati-Ataie, Interim Decision No. 2170 (A.G. 1972) and 

Matter of Nakoi, Interim Decision No. 2168 (BIA, 1972). 

440 
Interim Decision #2228 

Consequently, deportability has been established by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. 

On appeal, the respondent applied for termination of proceedings under section 241(f) on the ground that he was married to a 

lawful permanent resident. Since the respondent did not procure 

his visa or other documentation by fraud or misrepresentation, it 

is evident that the respondent is not entitled to the benefits of 

section 241(f) of the Act. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

441