Interim Decision #1666 

MATTER OF NAGY 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14586364 

Decided by Board November 30, 1966 

Application of respondent, a 21-year-old native and citizen of Hungary,• for 

withholding of her deportation pursuant to the provisions of section 243(h), 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by P.L. 89-236, is denied since 

respondent's liability to prosecution under Hungarian law, upon return to 

that country, arising from her disregard of the limitation placed on the 

duration of her travel abroad and from her objection to returning voluntarily to Hungary, does not, in itself, establish "persecution" within the 

contemplation of that section. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) (8 U.S.°. 12511—Nonimmigrant 

(visitor)—remained longer. 

The special inquiry officer, in a decision dated July 15, 1966, 

denied the respondent's application for adjustment of her status to 

that of a permanent resident; granted her the privilege of volun- • 

tary departure; provided for her deportation from the United States 

to Hungary, on the charge contained. in the order to show cause, 

in the event of her failure to so depart; and denied her application 

for temporary withholding of deportation to Hungary. The appeal 

from that decision, which brings the ease before this Board for 

consideration, will be dismissed. 

The record relates to a 21-year-old single female alien, a native 

and citizen of Hungary, who last entered the United States on or 

about December 1, 1964. She was then admitted as a nonimmigrant 

visitor for a period until September 15, 1965. On November 26, 

1065, she was granted the privilege of voluntaty departure in lieu 

of the institution .of deportation proceedings, such departure to be 

effected on or before December 6, 1965. She has, however, remained 

in the United. States since that date. 

888 
Interim Decision .#1666 

The foregoing establishes the respondent's deportability on the 

above-stated charge This was conceded in the course of the hearing 

before the special inquiry officer. It presents no problem- here. 

The special inquiry officer has already granted the respondent the 

privilege of voluntary departure. Suffice it to say, in this connection, 

that the record before us supports said official's action in this respect. 

We find that 'the special inquiry officer has properly denied the 

respondent's application for adjustment of her status to that of a 

permanent resident pursuant to section 245 of. the. Immigration and. 

icationality. .Act (8 IT.S_CI 1255)- In order for her to be eligible 

for the benefits of that section, she is required to establish that an 

immigrant visa is readily available to her. Also, under the appropriate provisions of 8 CPR 245.1 the respondent, who is presently 

employed as a "shampoo girl" and assisting a hairdresser is not 

eligible 'for the benefits of said section of the statute Unless she 

presents a certification issued by the Secretary of Labor under 

section 212(a) (14) of the Act, or unless she demonstrates that her 

occupation is included in the current list of categories of employment for which the Secretary of Labor has issued a blanket certification under that section. 

It is established and uncontested that this respondent has failed 

to obtain the required labor clearance. The copy of a newspaper 

article concerning reported 'changes in the procedure for obtaining 

the necessary labor clearance and containing a purported list of 

occupations for whicha labor clearance will not be required, dbks 

not mention the specific occupation presently being followed by this 

respondent; and the very nature of this document speaks for itself 

insofar as its evidentiary value is eonctirned. 

We likewise find that the special inquiry officer has properly 

denied the respondent's request for temporary withholding of her 

deportation to Hungary. Our review of the record convinces us 

that she has not met her burden of establishing that she would be 

subjected to persecution because of race, religion or political opinion 

upon her return to Hungary (see 8 OFR 242.17(o)). We do not 

think that the judicial precedents cited by the respondent (Bovie' h. v. 

Espe;'dy, 319 F.2d 21; and Dunat v. Romney, 297 F.2d 744) call for 

a contrary conclusion.• - 

The respondent first claimed that she was deprived- of an opportunity to pursue further Studies.after completing high Whoa!, because she was considered' '!class enemy" by the Hungarian authorities as a result of an. mole of hers having fled to the West:- However, the record reflects that when she applied for a passport to 

889 
Interim Decision #1666 

and from her objection to returning voluntarily to Hungary. As 

a result, of course, she may be subjected to more severe penalties 

under Hungarian, law than would otherwise be the case. But aside 

from the matter of her unauthorized extension of her visit in the 

United States, none of the other circumstances relied on by the 

respondent appear persuasively pertinent to the point at issae here. 

They existed before her departure from Hungary and did not result 

in her persecution there or- prevent her leaving that country. Her 

parents who still reside in Hungary and are employed there have 

not been persecuted. 

In conclusion, if weight were given to the basic reason for this 

appeal it would, effect, make it possible for every Hungarian 

visitor to the United States to create a basis for immunity to deportation merely by extending the period of stay beyond that usually involved in a visit. Without more, this does not suffice to 

support an application for this type of relief. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

802