Interim Decision #1569 

MATTER OF NIGHT= 

Iii Deportation Proceedings 

ie-10392808 

• Decided by Board April 6, 1966 

A native and citizen of Viet Nail who has been in the United States since 

his last admission as an exchange visitor physician in 1958 has not established that because he has been away from his country so long, has refused 

to return, is American trained and has an American family, he would be 

subject to persedettion within the meaning of section 243 (h), Immigration 

and Nationality Act, as amended, if deported to Viet Nam. 

Canoe: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.Q. 1251(a) (2))—Exchange 

visitor—remained longer. 

Respondent is married, male, 41 years of age, a native and citizen 

of Viet Nam, who was admitted to the United States on Septeniber 

5, 1958, as an exchange visitor until September 15, 1962. He Was 

granted until December 23, 1962, to depart, but did not avail himself of the grant. He has conceded deportability and applies for 

withholding of deportation to Viet Nam pursuant to section 243(h) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. The special 

inquiry officer denied this application. Respondent appeals to the 

Board from the denial. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The special inquiry oficer has set forth with care the respondent's f

educational and professional background, and the manner in which 

he has employed his time since he has been in the United §tates. He 

is a doctor and was Reaching in the Department of Medicine at the 

University of Saigon before coming to the United States. He was 

first in the United States from 1955 to 1956 and attended the School 

of Public Health, University of Michigan at Ann Harbor, and received a Master of Public Health degree. When he returned to the 

United States in 1958 he studied at Harvard School of Public 

Health, and was granted a Master of Science in Teaching. He then 

attended the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health and was 

541 
Interim Decision #1569 

granted a Doctor of Public Health degree in 1962. He -worked in 

the Department of Environmental Medicine of the Johns Hopkins 

School of Hygiene as a research associate; that school filed a petition 

on his behalf for a first preference which was granted by the Baltimore office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service on 

March 27, 1963. 

Respondent pleads that he will be subject to persecution or discriminated against in Viet Nam because he has been away from the 

country so long and has refused to return. Most of the record goes 

to his fear of the government of Viet Nam prior to the revolution 

in that country which occurred on November 2, 1968. Most of the 

exhibits consist of magazine and newspaper reports on the Diem 

administration which . was overthrown by General Nguyen Khanh. 

Respondent admitted in his last reopened hearing on May 20, 1965, 

that he is not well acquainted with the present government, but he 

believes that there is continued. instability in the political parties and 

in the Vietnamese Government, regardless of the identity of the head 

of state. He asserts that having an American family places him in 

a partiehlarly precarious position. 

It is our feeling that, since the revolution overthrowing the Diem 

regime two and a half years ago, at least part of the record regarding political conditions in that country is out of date. It is apparent 

that respondent has no desire to return to his country to use the 

special training he has received in the United States for the good of 

his fellow countrymen. He declares that physicians educated in the 

United States are discriminated against in Viet Nam in favor of 

physicians trained in France, and that the dean-of the medical school 

at Saigon had told him personally that no credit could be given for 

training acquired in this country. This cannot be considered. to be 

evidence supporting a claim of persecution in Viet Nam. Respondent came to the United States first in 1955. When he returned two 

years later for additional training he must have been fully aware of 

the government's attitude of discrimination, if it exists, in favor of 

French trained physicians. 

The fact that-respondent has attempted to remain in the United 

States and has delayed his return to his native country as long as 

possible does not constitute evidence that respondent will be subject 

to persecution in Viet Nam. If this constituted evidence of parsecutIon, every case coming before the Board would, necessarily, be 

resolved favorably to the alien. Every person applying for section 

243(h) relief from deportation has delayed his departure as long as 

possible, and must, to some degree, have charged the government in 

542 
Interim Decision *1569 

his native land with repressive tactics; otherwise the appeal would 

not be before us. 

On April 11, 1963, respondent married a United States citizen. 

One child was born of this union and at the time of his last hearing 

respondent offered evidence to establish that his wife was again 

pregnant, and was expecting a second child to be born in August 

1965. Respondent's wife has two children by a previous marriage 

who live with her. Her fOrmer husband, one Dr. Lindgren, testified 

in behalf of respondent at his hearing in May 1963. Dr. Lindgren 

also served with the United States Public Health Service in Viet 

Warn. Dr. Lindgren is remarried, and the record establishes that 

he pays support for his two daughters to respondent's wife, and that 

relationships between the two families are friendly. 

The Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural 

Affairs, informed the District Director at Baltimore that on. February 25, 1965, the Agency for International Development requested 

the enforced departure of respondent "even though this constitutes 

an exception to the present Service policy of not requiring departure of section 212(e) applicants pending completion of the study 

of the Exchange-Visitor Program" (Ex. B-4). The Al]) memorandum, dated March 13, 1965, is quite lengthy, and makes the following 

points: (1) that th•overnment of Viet Nam and our mission undertook the training of Dr. Thieu as part of the expansion of medical education facilities badly needed in Viet Nam- (2) that Dr. 

Thieu signed an agreement to work for the Viet Nam Government for 

ten years as a member of the faculty of the University of Saigon in 

return for the advance medical education given him; (3) that Dr. 

Thieu arrived in the United States under the sponsorship of the 

World Ilealth. Organization on September 5, 1958, that his support 

was assumed by the Agency for International Development on 

September 1, 1960, and that his visa support was terminated by that 

agency an September 15, 1962; (4) that Dr.. Thieu was fully aware 

when he signed these contracts of the reqUirement of section 212(e) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act that he would be required 

to return to his native land to utilize his training; (5) that Dr. 

Thieu was not selected for training under the AID program for his 

personal benefit but for the contribution he could make to the .progrant in Viet Nam; (6) that Dr. and Mrs-Thieu were aware of the 

fact at the time they married that they would have to choose either 

two years' separation or' that Mrs. Thieu would have to spend two 

years in Viet/ Nam in order to be with her husband. It was the 

opinion of the agencies involved that the respondent's case did not 

involve the "type of unforeseeable hardship envisoned by the regu543 
Interim Decision #1569 . 

latiohs implementing section 212(e) of the Immigration and sNation:- 

ality Act". The application for a waiver of the requirements of 

section 212(e) rat denied by the District Director at Ba'timbre, 

Maryland, and, on May 20, 1965, respondent's application for adjustment under section 245 was withdrawn. - 

While the above facts do not resolve the issue as to whether or not 

respondent would be subject to physical persecution upon his return 

to Viet Nam, we insert them in our decision for the reason that they 

indicate respondent's background and the circumstances under which 

-he returned to the United States in 1958 for further study and 

training. 

Respondent testified at his reopened hearing on May 20, 1965, 

(1) that if he is returned to Viet Nam he would have to take "a 

position" in political affairs; (2) that "people might he nasty" to 

him because he had the special privilege of remaining in the United 

States for a number of years, and (3) because he has an American 

. family, he might be discriminated against. He states that he would 

not be free to practice medicine to support himself and his family, 

and the small salary paid by Viet Nam to its physicians would not 

permit him to support an American family. , He `would not be free 

to choose employment, and he believes that the present regime is still 

a dictatorship. - 

Respondent was investigated and cleared for a passport by the 

former (Diem) regime, which he professes to have feared the most. 

He was permitted to return to the United States for a second period 

of training, after having been here once already. If is true that 

United States trained physicians are discriminated against in Viet 

Nam both by the government and by French-trained physicians, 

it is difficult to comprehend why he chose extended training in the 

United States. He admits that his own knowledge of conditions 

in Viet Nam predates the overthrow of the Diem regime. 

For the most part the Board has not considered that joinins.

b 

 - 

protest groups and -making' public 'statements aftek entering the 

'United States supports a withholding of deportation -under section 

243(h). Many aliens have attempted to . build up a 243(h) case 

by this sort of activity. Whatever public statements and protests 

respondent may have made while in the United States do not seem 

to u•sufficient to make hint persona non grata to the present regime. 

The record does not establish that respondent is wanted by his 

government for:any. reason except to fulfill the contracts he made, 

both with his own government' and with the agencies who sponsored . 

 and suppprted him here. Many persons have gone to Viet Nam 

who are not nati,ves of respondent's country. The revised statute, 

541. 
Interim Decision #1569 

section 11 of the Act of October 3, 1965 (8 U.S.C.A. 1253(h)), 

eliminates the requirement that there be a finding that respondent 

would suffer "physical" persecution if returned to his native country. Even considering this record under the new law we are unable 

to find that deportation of respondent to Viet Nam will subject him 

to persecution. The appeal will be dismissed. , 

ORDER: It is ordered that `the appeal be dismissed. 

It sa further ordered that the order of the special inquiry °facer 

of November 8, 1965 be and is hereby approved. 

546