Interim Decision #1274 

MATTER or Lours 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-12635510 

Decided by Board March, R6, 1963 

"Extreme harasnip" within the meaning or section 244(a) (1) or the iminigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended by the Act of October 24, 1962, 

would result from the deportation of respondent, a 42-year-old native and 

citizen of China, who has resided continuously in the United States for a period 

or n years, in view of the great difficulty he would experience at his age in 

obtaining employment or in adjusting to life in a new country, and in view of 

the advanced age (12) and permanent disability of his partially-dependent 

United States citizen father. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241 (a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)3—Nonimmigrant 

remained longer than permitted. 

This case is before us on appeal from a decision of a special inquiry 

officer denying the respondent's three applications mentioned above 

and directing his deportation. For the reasons hereinafter mentioned, 

we will grant the application for suspension of deportation, and the 

other applications need not be considered. 

Discussion As To Deportability: The respondent is a 42-year-old 

married male, native and citizen of China, who last entered the United 

States on August 21, 1951 at which time he was admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor authorized to remain in this country until November 21, 1951. He has remained in the United States without authority 

and has conceded that he is deportable on the charge stated in the 

order to show cause. 

Discussion As To Eligibility For Suspension of Deportation: 

On February 16, 1962 the respondent applied for suspension of deport ation under section 244(a) (5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Prior to the decision of the special inquiry officer on December 20, 1962, this statutory provision had been amended by section 4 

of the Act of October 24, 1962 (Public Law 87-885; 76 Stat. 1247). 

Originally section 44(a) authorized the Attorney General to suspend 

223 
Interim Decision #1274 

deportation in acordance with the statutory requirements which were 

set out. Since such action had not been taken prior to the amendment 

of October 21, 1962, it follows that the respondent's case must be determined under the applicable provision of the amended section, that is, 

Section 244 (a) (1) . 

The respondent was born on the mainland of China and lived there 

until 1949. He stated that at that time he fled to Hong Kong because 

the Communists were taking control of China. He left Hong Kong 

for Central America in 1950. He was married in 1950 while still in 

Hong Kong, and one child was born there of the marriage on March 5, 

1951. The respondent's wife and child still reside in Hong Kong and 

she is employed there as a nursemaid in an orphanage. The respondent 

contributes to their support by sending $50 to $100 monthly. Ho has 

been employed in the United States as a waiter and now earns about 

$85 weekly. In his application for suspension of deportation, he stated 

that his assets amounted to $2,360. 

The respondent's statement of November 6, 1961 (Ex. 8, p. 2) contains information verifying his admission as a nonimmigrant 'on 

August 21, 1951, and he has testified that he has not been absent on 

any occasion since that date. The special inquiry officer concluded that 

the respondent had been physically present in the United States for 

a continuous period of at least ten years, and we are also satisfied from 

the record as to the respondent's continuous physical presence in this 

country since August 21, 1951. It follows that he meets the requirement of section 244(a) (1), as amended, concerning physical presence 

in the United States for 9, continuous period of not less than seven 

years. 

The special inquiry officer also concluded that the respondent had 

established good moral character during the statutory period. The 

respondent testified that he had never been arrested or convicted of 

any crime. A search of the local police records and a report received 

from the Identification Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation indicate that the respondent has no criminal record. An independent investigation conducted by the Service was favorable to the 

respondent. We conclude that the respondent has established his good 

moral character during the seven years preceding his application. 

Prior to the amendment of October 24, 1962, the five paragraphs of 

section 244 (a) required an applicant to establish that his deportation 

would result "in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the 

alien or to his citizen or legally resident spouse, parent or child. This 

same language was retained in amended section 244(a) (2), but in 

amended section. 244(a) (1), which is involved here, the language was 

changed to require the alien to establish that his deportation would 

result "in extreme hardship" to him or to his citizen or legally resident 

224 
Interim Decision #1274 

spouse, parent or child. Although the special inquiry officer held that 

extreme hardship meant something less than exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship, he was not satisfied that the respondent's case met 

this statutory requirement. 

The respondent asserts that his deportation would result in extreme 

hardship to him and to his father. The latter has lived in this country 

since his lawful admission on September 20, 1922, and he was naturalized as a United States citizen on June 27, 1958. On November 6, 1961 

the respondent testified that his father was partially paralyzed, and 

the record contains a certificate (Ex. 10) from a physician indicating 

that the respondent's father has been under his medical care since 

March 8, 1960 and is permanently disabled. From 1952 until recently, 

the respondent lived with his father in Los Angeles but the latter, 

who is 72 years old, is now in the International Guest Home in that 

city. The respondent testified that the cost of his father's maintenance is about $125 per month; that this is paid by Los Angeles 

County; that his father has no income; that he receives an old age 

pension of $125 which he returns to the International Guest Home; 

that he (the respondent) contributes about $50 monthly toward his 

father's support and care; and that he takes his father to the doctor 

each week (pp. 13-15). Apparently the respondent and his father 

have no close relatives in the United States. In view of the father's 

advanced age and physical condition, we believe it would be extremely 

harsh, both to the respondent and his father, to deport this alien from 

the United States. 

The respondent states that he desires to bring his wife and son to 

the United States from Hong Fong. He testified that he has never 

been a member of the Communist Party of any country and has not 

been a member of any organization affiliated with the Party, and there 

is nothing to indicate such membership. Ho testified that he fears 

physical persecution if returned to Communist China because he is 

opposed to communism and fled China for that reason. However, 

the special inquiry officer did not direct deportation to Communist 

China but to the Republic of China on Formosa or to Hong Kong. 

The respondent also stated that he cannot return to Hong Kong because he never established residence there. The respondent has lived 

continuously in Los Angeles since March 1952—a period of 11 years. 

If the respondent were deported to Formosa or Hong Kong, we believe 

he would experience great difficulty in obtaining employment or in 

adjusting to life in a new country, particularly since he is now 42 years 

of age. 

In view of the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that the respondent's deportation would result in extreme hardship to him and to 

his United States citizen father. Hence, his case meets all the statu225 

758-456-435----16 
Interim Decision #1274 

tort' requirements of section 244(a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as amended. We also believe that this ease merits the 

exercise of the discretion to suspend deportation. Accordingly, the • 

respondent's application for suspension will be granted. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of deportation entered by 

the special inquiry officer be withdrawn and that the deportation of 

the alien be suspended under the provisions of section 24.4 (a) (1) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act as amended. 

It is further ordered that if the Congress takes no action adverse to 

the order granting suspension of the alien's deportation, the proceedings be cancelled, and the alien, if a quota immigrant at the time of 

entry not then charged to the appropriate quota, be so charged as 

provided by law. 

It is further ordered that in the event the Congress takes action adverse to the order granting suspension of deportation, these proceedings shall be reopened upon notice to the respondent. 

226