Interim Decision #2237 

MAIThR OF MURAT-KHAN 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-20135179 

Decided by Board August 27, .1973 

(1) While penal confinement is a significant factor in determining whether a 

nonimmigrant's criminal conduct constitutes a violation of nonimmigrant 

status within the meaning of section 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a likewise significant factor is whether the criminal conduct is 

meaningfully disruptive of the purpose for which the nonimmigrant was 

admitted. 

(2) A nonimmigrant student's conviction for the offense of residing where drug 

laws are violated and resultant 20-day incarceration did not constitute a 

failure to maintain nonimmigrant status under section 241(a)(9) of the Act 

where her criminal conduct did not meaningfully disrupt the pursuit of her 

studies (the purpose for which she was admitted), as evidenced by aboveaverage academic work which actually improved following her incarceration. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9))—Failure to comply 

with conditions of nonimmigrant status. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Raul Soto-Seelig, Esquire 

1022 Georgia-Pacific Bldg. 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

F. Ernest Ayers 

Trial Attorney 

(Brief filed) 

This is a Service appeal from a decision of an immigration judge 

ordering these proceedings terminated. The appeal will be dismissed. 

'The respondent is a 20-year-old unmarried female alien, native 

and citizen of Pakistan, who entered the United States on or about 

September 6, 1971 as a nonimmigrant student authorized to 

remain until September 5, 1973. At a hearing before an immigration judge on January 17, 1973, at which she was represented by 

present counsel, respondent admitted the truth of the factual 

allegations of the order to show cause but denied deportability. 

The record indicates that on September 12, 1972 the respondent 

was convicted in the ,Mansfield Municipal Court, Mansfield, Ohio 

465 
Interim Decision #2237 

for the offense of residing were drug laws are violated, and was 

sentenced to 180 days in jail (Ex. 5). The respondent was incarcerated from September 14, 1972 until October 3, 1972 at which time 

the balance of her sentence was suspended (Ex. 3). 

At the hearing the immigration judge found that since the 

respondent was permitted to resume her studies immediately 

upon her release from custody and successfully completed the 

school term, there had been no violation of her nonimmigrant 

student status. He concluded that our decision in Matter of C—, 9 

I. & N. Dec. 100 (BIA 1960); compelled termination of the proceedings. On this appeal the Service urges that Matter of C—, supra, 

should not apply and that Matter of A —, 6 I. & N. Dec. 762 (BIA 

1955), requires a finding of deportability. We reject the trial 

attorney's argument and hold that the proceedings were properly 

terminated. 

Matter of C—, supra, involved a nonimmigrant student -Who was 

convicted for disorderly conduct but not incarcerated. The basis 

for our finding that his student status had not been violated was 

the fact that he was able to continue his school attendance 

without interruption notwithstanding his offense. We adjudged 

that since his education had not been meaningfully disrupted, he 

had not abandoned his pursuit of the purpose for which he was 

admitted to the United States. Matter of A —, supra, involved a 

nonimmigrant visitor who was convicted and imprisoned for disorderly conduct. We found his incarceration to be inconsistent with 

the purpose of his admission, namely, to pursue pleasure, and in 

violation of his nonimmigrant status within the meaning of section 

241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

It is clear from these cases that the focus of our inquiry was on 

the purpose for which the nonimmigrant was admitted, and not 

merely on the presence or absence of penal confinement. In the 

present case the respondent was admitted in order to study and 

the evidence indicates that her criminal conduct has in no way 

interfered with or compromised that purpose. Her major academic 

advisor states that her work has been "above average" and "very 

satisfactory" (Ex. 7), and the record reflects that the respondent's 

grades actually improved during the term for which she registered 

late as a result of her incarceration (Ex. 6). 

We therefore conclude that the respondent's conduct has not 

constituted a failure to maintian the nonimmigrant status in 

which she was admitted. The decision of the immigration judge to 

terminate was correct and it will be affirmed. The following order 

will be entered. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

466