Interim Decision *1812 

MAITRE OF CASTELLO-GODOY 

In. Deportation Proceedings 

A-14611583 

Decided by Board November 17 , 1967 

Notwithstanding requisite family relationvhip, reeponderat, wile. entered the 

United States on the basis of a fraudulent marriage to a United States citizen 

and was thus exempt from the presentation of a labor certification.is statutorily 

ineligible for the benefits of section 241 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, as amended, because he was inadmissible at entry under section 212( a ) (14) 

of the Act, as amended, and, therefore, was not "otherwise admissible" at 

entry except for grounds arising from visa fraud or misrepresentation. 

CT:Luton: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1)1—Excisable at 

entry: (1) Visa procured by fraud or willful misrepresentation (sec. 212(a) (19) ) ; (2) Immigrant, no visa 

(sec. 212(a) (20)) ; (3) Entering for labor, no certification (sec. 212(a) (14) ). 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 

Bedell° Victoria, Esquire 

Newman and Newman 

354 South Spring Street 

Los Angeles, California 90013 

ON BEHALF or Srsvicn: 

Reece R. Robertson 

Trial Attorney 

Respondent, a 32-year-old married male, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, was admitted on February 5, 1966 upon surrender of a visa 

issued to him as an alien born in an independent country of the 

Western Hemisphere. Although coming to perform unskilled labor 

he was exempted from the labor certification requirement because he 

was married to Luna, a citizen of the United States. The marriage. 

was not a bona fide one: respondent married solely to obtain entry 

under the immigration laws. 

On May 29, 1967, the special inquiry officer found respondent deportable upon the grounds stated in the caption and ineligible for section 241(f) relief. Timely appeal was filed. In September the case was 

transcribed and submitted to the Board which on October 5, 1967 

520 
Interim Decision #1812 

ruled that respondent was not within section 211 (f ) because the relationship on which he based. his eligibility was to his illegitimate child. 

On October 18, 1967 respondent filed a motion to reopen the hearing 

to establish that respondent had obtained a. final divorce from Luna 

on August 8, 1967, that he had married the mother of his child on . 

August 26, 1967, that she is a United States citizen, that the marriage 

legitimated the child and that respondent is now a "parent" of a United 

States citizen for the purpose of section 241 (f ). 

Opposing the motion, the Service contends that even if respondent 

is a "parent" he is not eligible for relief under section 241(f). The 

Service points out the benefits of the section are available only to an 

alien who is admissible at the time of entry except for the fact that he 

scoured a visa or other documentation by fraud or misrepresentation. 

The respondent, the Service contends, was inadmissible on a ground in 

addition to those arising out of the procurement of a visa by fraud—

he did not have the labor certification required by section 212(a) (14). 

of the Act. 

If the allegations of the motion are true, the respondent is the 

"parent" of a United States citizen child and would come within the 

terms of section 241(f) if he were admissible except for the fraud. 

However, we find that respondent was not so admissible : at the time 

of entry, he needed a labor certification, but he did not have one. Thereis no reason to believe that Congress intended section 241(f) to apply 

to an alien who had entered without the proper labor certification. 

Since we find that respondent was otherwise inadmissible than by 

reason of his fraud, we do not believe that reopening would serve any 

purpose. The motion will therefore be denied. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the motion to reopen be and the same is 

hereby denied. 

521