MATTER OF T 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-5592351 

Decided by Board January 14, 1960 

Evidence—Hospital records containing opinions, conclusions and hourly notes 

made by hospital personnel are admissible. 

Hospital records reflecting respondent's addiction to narcotics are admissible 

in evidence in immigration proceedings notwithstanding that they contain 

opinions, conclusions, and hourly floor notes made by nurses and other hospital personnel on duty. The weight to be assigned such evidence is for 

determination by the trier of the facts. 

CHARGE 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (11) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (11)1—Narcotic 

drug addict. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion : Respondent is 58 years old, unmarried, male, a native 

and national of Italy, who first entered the United States at New 

York February 22, 1905. The special inquiry officer found respondent deportable on the charge set forth above and ordered him deported from the United States. Respondent appeals to this Board. 

Respondent claims to have believed that he had United States 

citizenship through his father. He stated that his father told him 

that he, the father, was a citizen of the United States, and he believes 

his father voted in the United States. He knows, however, that one 

of his sisters was naturalized a United States citizen on her own 

initiative. Two of his sisters returned to Italy and another lives in 

Chicago, and respondent does not know whether the latter is a citizen. The conclusion of the special inquiry officer is that respondent 

is an alien, and the record supports this conclusion. There is no 

record of naturalization of respondent nor of his father. Exhibit 4 

is a "Certificate of Non-Existence of Record" which is evidence that 

there is no record or entry regarding the naturalization as a citizen 

of the United States of respondent's father in any of the names by 

which he was known. For further discussion of these certificates 

see Matter of C , 5 I. & N. Dec. 370, at page 372 (B.I.A., Aug. 3, 

1953). Respondent testified that his father returned to Italy follow523 
ing the death of respondent's mother. Respondent's fatner 

in Italy in 1913 or 1914, and he and his second wife lived in the 

United States a "couple of years." They returned to Italy in 1921, 

where respondent's father remained until his death in 1932. Respondent testified that he registered as an alien in 1940 under the 

Alien Registration Act, but that he has not filed an address report 

card since that time.. The record contains no evidence that respondent is a United States citizen. He has admitted alienage on several 

occasions. It is our conclusion that respondent's, alienage is established. 

The special inquiry officer finds that the record establishes that 

since his entry, and subsequent to December 24, 1952, respondent has 

b-en a narcotic drug addict, particularly at Fort Worth, Texas, in 

1953, and in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1955. The evidence of record is 

sufficient to sustain these findings. 

There is some controversy in the hearing record between counsel 

and the special inquiry officer and the examining officer as to the 

extent to which the hospital records relating to respondent may be 

considered as evidence. On May 4, 1959, at Butte, Montana, respondent signed an authorization permitting Creighton Memorial 

St. Joseph's Hospital at Omaha, Nebraska, and the United States 

Public Health Service Hospital at Fort Worth, Texas, to release to 

the, United States Immigration and Naturalization Service any records in their possession relating to him. Certified copies of the 

hospital records were. obtained and constitute a portion of the, record 

now before us. The detailed hospital record constituting exhibit 7 

was objected to by counsel on the grounds that it consists chiefly of 

hearsay and contains material not relevant to the issues in this case. 

It was the conclusion of the special inquiry officer that, with the 

exception of the covering sheet (containing summary, provisional 

diagnosis and final diagnosis), the record from Creighton Memorial 

St. Joseph's Hospital, exhibit 7, should not be considered part of 

the record, inasmuch as it contains opinions, conclusions, hourly flow 

notes made by nurses and other hospital personnel on duty. 

The hospital records were made at the time respondent was 

patient and constitute the admission and discharge notes of doctor 

who prescribed treatment for him. The records made at. those tim( 

are more apt to be accurate than respondent's present recolleetic 

with regard to the amount of narcotics he was using 4 and 6 yea 

ago, the frequency with which he was taking drugs, and the leng 

of time he had been administering narcotics to himself. 

28 U.S.C. 1732 provides for the admissibility in any court of 1 

United States of memoranda and records kept in the regular con 

of business. It has been widely held that under this et.ature hosp 

records are admissible. in state and federal courts, at least insc 

524 
as they relate to medical and physical conditions of patients. See 

annotations to this section, also Supplement, 28 U.S.C. 1732. One 

case holds that a portion of the records containing the patient's 

recital as to his past life is objectionable (England v. United States, 

174 F.2d 406 (C.A. 5, 1949) ). The similar recital in the present 

record, contained in exhibit 7, was excluded by the special inquiry 

officer. If admissible in courts of law, hospital records are certainly 

admissible in administrative proceedings such as this. The certification of the custodian of the records at Creighton Memorial St.. 

Joseph's Hospital, Omaha, Nebraska, that the attached photostatic 

copies are true and correct copies of the official records of that. institution raises them above the level of hearsay. Exhibit 7 is entitled 

at least to he considered as evidence.. The weight to be assigned 

these. records is for the determination of the trier of the. facts. 

The same rule applies to the records of the United States Public 

Health Service Hospital at Fort Worth, Texas. It would be preferable if the certification as to their accuracy had been made by the 

custodian of the records at the hospital, rather than by an investigator for the Immigration Service. However, in view of 28 U.S.C. 

1732 and, even more, 28 U.S.C. 1733 (relating to records kept by 

government agencies) this flaw is certainly not fatal. 

These hospital records are of much greater persuasion than respondent's present conclusions as to whether or not he was an 

"addict. " at any particular time. Respondent has freely admitted 

addiction in his preliminary statements as well as in the course of 

the hearing. 

In several cases since the passage of the 1952 act we have relied 

upon the statutory definition of narcotic "addict" quoted by the special inquiry officer (Matter of K C B , 6 I. & N. Dec. 374 

(B.I.A., Nov. 23, 1954), and Matter of F S C , A-3409248, 

Int. Dec. No. 948 (B.I.A., Aug. 11, 1058)). 42 I•S.C.A 201(k) 

defines "narcotic drug addict" as "any person who habitually uses 

any habit-forming narcotic drugs so as to endanger the public morals, 

health, safety, or welfare, or who is or has been so far addicted to 

the. use of such habit-forming narcotic drugs as to have lost the 

power of self-control with reference to his addiction." 

It is our conclusion that the record establishes that respondent 

has been a drug addict. within the past 7 years on several occasions, 

and as such is deportable on the charge stated in the order to show 

cause. 

Respondent is not. eligible for any form of relief from deportation 

under the present law. We recognize that he has been in the United 

States since he was 7 years of age, that he knows nothing about his 

native land, and that deportation under these circumstances constitutes a great hardship. Suspension of deportation under section 

595 
244(a) (5) is not available to respondent, because he must be able 

to establish physical presence in the United States for a continuous 

period of not less than 10 years following the commission of the act 

constituting a ground for deportation, and prove that during all of 

that time he has been a person of good moral character. He cannot 

establish that 10 years have passed since his last period of addiction, 

because his last hospitalization began and ended in December 1955. 

Respondent is not eligible even for voluntary departure, because 

section 244(e) of the Immigration and Nationality.Act provides that 

voluntary departure is available to aliens under deportation proceedings, other than those within certain classes, and one of the excepted classes is an alien within the provisions of section 241(a) (11). 

'Therefore, we have no choice but to affirm the special inquiry officer's order of deportation and dismiss the appeal. 

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed 

526