Interim Decision #2498 

MATTER. OF TEBEREN 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-17442007 

Decided by, Boird June 16, 1976 

in order to establish an alien's deportability as an overstay, the Service need only show 

that the alien was admitted as a nonimmigrant for a temporary period; that the period 

has elapsed; and that the alien has not departed. Since an alien becomes deportable as 

an overstay at the time the authorized period of his admission expires unless he receives 

a grant of extension from a district director, a formal denial of an application for 

extension of stay by a district director is not required to establish an alien's deportability as an overstay. 

CHARGE: 

Orden Act of 1952-8ection 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Nonimmigrant 

student—remained longer 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Richard D. Steel, Esquire 

Wasserman, Orlow, Kaye & Rubin 

636 Public Ledger Building 

Sixth and Chestnut Streets 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

In a decision dated November 13, 1975, the immigration judge found 

the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, but granted him the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation.. The respondent has appealed from the 

finding of deportability. The appeal will be. dismissed. 

The respondent is a native and citizen of Nigeria who was admitted to 

the United States as a nonimmigrant student in September of 1967_ His 

stay as a student was ultimately extended until June 1, 1975. He did not 

obtain an extension beyond that date, and the immigration judge therefore found him deportable as a nonimmigrant who had remained beyond 

the authorized length of his stay. 

The respondent admitted the truth"of the factual allegations contained 

in the order to show cause. He denies deportability, however, contending that the district director never adjudicated a timely filed application 

for an extension of stay. 

The record indicates that the respondent completed his under689 
Interim Decision #2498 

graduate cot education in the fall of 1974, presumably receiving a 

degree in either December 1974 or January 1975. He thereafter sought 

to attend graduate school at North Carolina State University. The 

university apparently prepared a Certificate of Eligibility for nonimmigrant student status (Form I-20A), which was received by the district director's office on January 2, 1975, and which indicated that the 

respondent Lad been accepted to the graduate school of the university 

for a full course of study to commence in January of 1975. 

The Service evidently returned the Form I-20A to the university 

because certain data was lacking. The respondent testified that a new 

and complete set of documents was submitted by mail to the Service in 

February of 1975, approximately three and one half months prior to the 

expiration of the respondent's stay. At the hearing, the Service's trial 

attorney stated that the Service had no record of such an application 

having been filed. For present purposes, we shall assume that the 

respondent mailed the required application to the Service, and that the 

application was lost prior to its adjudication. 

Counsel recognizes that the propriety of a district director's decision 

on an application for an extension of stay cannot be considered in 

deportation proceedings. See Matter of Hossinpour, 15 I. & N. Dee. 

191 (BIA 1975), aff'd, 520 F.2d 941 (C.A. 5, 1975) (table); Matter of 

Saurbis, 11 & N. Dec. 335 (BIA 1965). Counsel, however, does not 

seek approval of an extension of stay from the immigration judge. 

Counsel merely argues that the respondent should not be found deportable as an "overstay" absent a ruling by the district director on a timely 

filed application for an extension of stay. 

A nonimmigrant alien has the obligation either to depart at the 

expiration of his authorized period of stay, or to obtain a proper extension of that stay. Counsel, in essence, argues that the respondent's 

overstay was justified under the circumstances. As a general rule, 

however, an inquiry into whether or not an overstay was justified is not 

germane to ;he question of an alien's deportability under section 241-

(a)(2). Matter of Arao, 13 I. & N. Dec. 156 (BIA 1969); see Matter of 

Halabi, 15 I. & N. Dec. 105 (BIA 1974). See also Matter of C—C—, 3 

I. & N. Doc. 221 (31A 1948). 

In order to establish an alien's deportability as an "overstay," the 

Service need only show that the alien was admitted as a nonimmigrant 

". . . for a temporary period, that the period has elapsed, and that the 

nonimmigrant has not departed." Milande v. INS, 484 F.2d 774, 776 

(C.A. 7, 1973). The Service has made such a showing in this case. 

We reject counsel's contention that the respondent, cannot be an 

"overstay" until he receives a formal denial of an extension from Lhe 

district director. Rather, we hold that a nonimmigrant becomes deportable as an "overstay" when the period of his admission expires, unless 

690 
Interim Decision #2498 

he receives a grant of an extension of his stay. The respondent is 

deportable as charged. 

Finally, we note that the district director evidently offered to consider reinstatement of the respondent's student status (see Tr. pp. 

17-18). We have not been informed of any developments with respect to 

that offer. However, there is an indication in the record that North 

Carolina State University ultimately decided not to accept the respondent as a student because he did not satisfy the school's admission 

requirements (see Tr. pp. 8, 15). 

The decision of the immigration judge was correct. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

Further order:• Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the respondent is permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within 31 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that 

time as may be granted by the district director; and in the event of 

failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

691