Interim Decision #2418 

MATTER OF LAWRENCE 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-13637499 

A-20493015 

Decided by Board August 4, 1975 

(1) The term "temporary" as used in section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act does not contemplate a potentially limitless visit to the United States. 

(2) Respondents, natives and citizens of Canada, who, at the time of their last entry as 

nonisnmigrarit visitors for business, did not seek .to enter the United States for a 

reasonably shcrt and relatively definite period of time and were not coming here with 

any limited goal in mind but, instead, were entering to manage the ]ay-to-day operations of a United States enterprise, the business activities of which do not call for their 

return to Canada, were not entitled to enter as visitors for business and are deportable 

under section 241(a)(1) of the Act because excludable at entry as immigrants not in 

possession of valid immigrant visas. 

CHARGE. 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]--Excludable at time of 

entry under section 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20)1- 

-immigrant not in possession of valid immigrant visa (both 

respondents) 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 

Robert 0. Wells, Jr., Esquire 

3300 Seattle-First National 

Bank Building 

Seattle, Washington 98154 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Ray A. Wolstenholme 

Acting Trial Attorney 

In a decision dated April 14, 1975, the immigration judge found the 

respondents deportable, but granted them the privilege of voluntary 

departure. The respondents have appealed from that decision. The 

appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondents, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of 

Canada who last entered the United States in January of 1975 as visitors 

for business. The Service alleges that they did not then qualify as 

nonimmigrant, visitors for business, because they were entering to work 

and to remain indefinitely in the United States. Unless the respondents 

qualified as business visitors at the time of their last entry, they are 

418 
Interim Decision #2418 

presumed to have been immigrants and are now deportable as charged 

by the Service. See section 214(b), Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Through a Canadian holding company, the respondents own 40 percent of the stock of Home Care, Inc. (Home Care)i, a company incorporated under the laws of the state of Washington in February of 1973. 

Home Care is in the business of purchasing improved real property, 

primarily single family residences, with the expectation that aprofit can 

be made on the resale of the property after a period of market appreciation. The holding period for a particular piece of property is indefinite; , 

however, a holding period of between two and five years is contemplated. During this period, Home Care rents the properties. Home 

Care's financing appears to come both from Canadian lending institu-, , 

 tions and from second mortgages held by the sellers of the homes. 

The male respondent appears to be the person primarily, if not solely, 

responsible for the activities of Home Care. In the two and one ,half 

years Home Care has been in existence, helms inspected and purchased 

homes, contracted for their renovation, shown and rented them, and. 

generally managed the operations of Home Care. The male respondent 

has been assisted in these matters by his wife; however, neither respondent draws a salary from Home Care. The respondents claim to live off 

the proceeds of previous investments in Canada, and they expect that' 

their present efforts will be rewarded in the form of profits from the saleof the houses owned by Home Care. 

Section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act defines a nonimmigrant business 

visitor as, 

an alien . . . having a residende in a foreign country which he has no intention of 

abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business . . . . 

The term "business" as used in section 101(a)(15)(B) has been held not to 

include ordinary labqr for hire, but is limited to intercourse of a commercial character. See Karnalth, v. U.S. ex rel. 4lbro, 279 U.S. 231-

(1929); Matter of Hira, 11 I. & N. Dec. 824 (BIA 1965, 1966; A.G. 1966). 

The Service does not contend that the activities of the male respondent 

fail to come within the definition of the term "business." However, the 

Service alleges that the respondents do not have an unabandoned 

foreign residence and that their visit to the United States cannot be 

considered temporary. We need not resolve the question of whether the 

respondents have an unabandoned residence in Canada because we 

agree with the Service that their visit cannot be characterized as temporary. 

There are no inflexible rules to be applied for determining what' is 

"temporary" within the context of a business visit. In the past, we have 

indicated that the nature of the business activity itself need not be 

temporary. See Matter of Hira, supra. However, we have never held 

419 
Interim Decisiod #2418 

that an alien could qualify as a business visitor if his business activities 

almost exclusively involved the fulltime management of a United States 

enterprise. 

The male respondent's testimony indicates that he has devoted all of 

his time in recent years to the development of Home Care (Tr. p. 62). 

He testified tl at at the time of his entry he had no fixed date on which he 

intended •o:leave the United States (Tr. p. 6), and he indicated in a 

sworn statement taken before an officer of the Service that he hopes his 

position with Home Care will be permanent (Exh. 3). 

The male respondent did not seek to enter the United States for a 

reasonably short and relatively definite period of time. Nor was he 

coming here ivith any limited goal in mind. He was, instead, entering to 

oversee the dE.y-to-day operations of Home Care for an indefinite period 

of time. Furtherinore, the male respondent's business. activities in the 

United States do mot call for his return to Canada. 

It appears that the - male respondent might easily decide to remain 

here permanently-to supervise the day-to-day operations of Home Care, 

even though at present he may choose to return to Canada on a regular 

basis, The term "temporary" as used in section 101(a)(15)(B) certainly 

does not contemplate a potentially limitless visit to the United States. 

Themale respondent was not entitled to enter the United States as a 

business visitor on the date of his last entry. Because of the female 

respondent's direct participation in the affairsof her husband, her case. 

is entirely dependent upon the result in his. 

Both respondents have significantly lessened their involvement in 

routine matters affecting Home Care since the institution of these 

proceedings. However, the record still indicates that the male respondent's continued presence in the United States is required to supervise 

the day-to-day activities of Home Care. Furthermore,' the question 

before us is whethek the respondents were admissible as business visitors at the time of their last entry, not as of today. We find that 

deportability has been established by clear, convincing, and unequivocal 

evidence. 

ORDER: The appeal is disMissed. 

Further order: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the respondents are permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within 48 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 

failuke so to depart, the respondents shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

420