Interim Decision #2514 

MATTE4 OF ROBLES 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-21256271 

' Decided by Board August 9, 1976 

(1) Respondent ,nought to enter the United States at a Mexican border port of entry and 

surrendered his border crossing card to the immigration inspector who directed him to 

wait in the secondary inspection area. Respondent after a brief wait, fled the secondary 

area and entend the United States. 

(2) Under 8 CF R 235.1(a) an alien must apply in person to an immigration officer at a 

designated port of entry at a time when the immigration office at the port is open for 

inspection. Under 8 CPR 235.1(d) he must present any required locum ents and establish his admissibility to the satisfaction of the immigration officer. The immigration 

officer must ha afforded a full and fair opportunity to question the alien. San Matter, of 

F—, 11. & N. Dec. 90, (BIA AG 1941). 

(3) Where respondent briefly appeared before the immigration officer and did not establish 

his admissibility and thereafter fled from the secondary inspection area, he deprived the 

Service of a full opportunity to question him and in so doing, evaded the inspection 

contemplated by section 235 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Entry into the 

United States after intentionally evading the inspection required by the immigration 

laws and regulations is an entry without inspection and ground for deportation under 

section 241(a)(2) of the Act. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S. C. 1251(a)(2))--Entry without inspection 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se 

The Immigration and Naturalizaton Service has appealed from the 

July 13, 1976 decision of the immigration judge terminating deportation 

proceedings against the respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico. The 

appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded to the immigration judge. 

The respondent has been charged with being deportable as an alien 

who entered the United States without inspection in violation of section 

241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

At the hearing before the immigration judge the respondent testified 

that on December 18, 1975 he sought entry to the United States from 

Mexico. Upoa entering a United States inspection area located at the 

border with Mexico, the respondent handed his local border crossing 

734 
Interim Decision #2514 

card to the immigration inspector. He further testified that the immigration inspector took the card from him and told him to wait in the 

secondary inspection lane. According to the respondent's testimony, he 

became frightened and did not wait as he was instructed, but instead 

fled, passing through the inspection area. 

On the basis of the respondent's testimony, the immigration judge 

found that the respondent had presented himself for inspection and that 

"some sort of inspection did take place". He concluded that the charge of 

entry without inspection had not been sustained. We disagree. 

Every alien seeking to enter the United States must present himself 

for inspection. The term "inspection " is not defined in the Act. The 

regulations, however, state that the alien must apply in person to an 

immigration officer at a designated port of entry at a time when the 

immigration office at the port is open for inspection. 8 CFR 235.1(a). He 

must present any required documents and establish his admissibility to 

the satisfaction of the immigration officer. 8 CFR 235.1(d). The inspecting officer must be afforded a full and fair opportunity to question the 

alien. See Matter of F—, 1 I. & N. Dec. 90, (BIA AG 1941). 

Although the respondent briefly appeared before the immigration 

officer, his statements show that he did not establish his admissibility to 

the satisfaction of the immigration officer. Moreover, he deprived the 

Service of a full opportunity to question him. Accordingly, we conclude 

that the respondent evaded the inspection contemplated by the Act. 

Evidence that the respondent, unrestrained, passed through the 

United States inspection area after intentionally evading inspection 

establishes an entry into the United States. Matter of Pierre, 14 I. & N. 

Dec. 467 (BIA 1973). 

The deportability of the respondent under section 241(a)(2) has been 

proved by clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence. The appeal will 

be sustained. We shall remand the record to the immigration judge in 

order that he may give the respondent an opportunity to apply for any 

discretionary relief for which he may be eligible. 

ORDER: The appeal is sustained; the record will be remanded to the 

immigration judge for further proceedings consistent with the above 

opinion. 

735