Interim Decision #1552 

Mlairat Or PANG - 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A.:-.15169631 

Decided by Boarrd February 8, 1966 

(1) Where respondent refused to testify at the reopened hearing conducted 

for the purpose of establishing an alternate place of deportation, acceptance 

into evidence by the special inquiry officer' at the reopened proceedings of 

information from respadent's Government "of Hong Kong Seaman's Discharge Book was not in error and such information is admissible in evidence.' 

(2) Since respondent, an illegally landed alien, has offered nothing to controvert the evidence presented by the Government as to his citizenship and 

place of prior residence abroad and he•has re,.mained mute in the two hearings that have been accorded him, he has bad adequate opportunity to be 

heard and his request for farther hearing is denied as frivolous. 

We dismissed respondent's appeal on June 9, 1965, after full consideration bf the entire record. Matter of Pang, Int. Dec. No. 1479. 

He was ordered deported to the Republic, of China on Formosa, but 

that'governmont refuged' to accept respondent.. Therefore, on Septenil* 27, 1965, we 'directed that the hearing be reopened in order 

that-the record.might include additional evidence concern/tit an alternate place of deportation. At the reopened hearing the alien confined to refuse to testify:.The special-inquiry officer now directs 

that the respondent be deported to Hong Kong. Counsel again appeals, but be requests no- folio_ of relief, except that "the matter be 

sent book for further testimony at the hearing level." The appeal 

will be dismissed. 

We will not restate the facts set forth in our previous decision, 

but that decision is incorporated herewith. The record now contains 

two pieces of evidence supporting the order et the special inquiry 

officer to deport respondent to Hong Song. Respondent's affidavit, 

Exhibit 2, dated November 6, 1964, given to an investigator for the 

Immigration Service, was in the record when the case was here in 

•Reaffirmed, 868 F.2d 637. 

489 
Interim Deiciaisil. #1552 

June 1965. Respondent told the investigator that he is married to a. 

Chinese woinan living in Hong Kong, that they have two Children, 

ages 5 and 7, that he is a citizen of China, born at Kwantung, China, 

that he last arrived in the United States at New York on September 

4, 1962, on the SS "Clydefield" as a member of the crew, was refused 

permission to go ashore by the immigration officers, but went ashorein violation of that order. We, found in cur previous decision over 

the objections of counsel thit this' ''sttiteMkit was admissible in evidence under Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, section 242.14(c), 

and under judicial decisions and priOr deciaiOns of this Board. 

At the first hearing the special inquiry._ officer refused to accept the 

Service offer, of the respondent's Government of Hong Kong Seaman's Discharge Book- No 2848.. -Wet:implied: that the offer was 

proper, citing Peirers v. kw-if, 159 F. Supp. 81 (D.O.N.Y., 195R), 

wherein 'this Board had disregarded a passport offered -under similar 

circiunitances, be the court commented' that the 'passport was properly introduced evidence.' ,At 'ffie reopened hearing the trial 

attorneyagain offered this document or information from it. The 

special inquiry officersccepted the offer. He did not.place the book 

in evidence, but read the information into the record (R-4). The 

book shows-the name of Pang Chin, his rating as a sailor, his date 

of birth as 2-1.0-1930 and the date of issue as 7-12-54. The special 

inquiry officer stated Lat it contains "a good. likeness" of respondent. 

It shows respondent's place of birth as Kwangtung, China, that he 

was .exigaged on .June 24,19614 at Hong Song on the SS "Ban* dustart"' and discharged April 12, 1962 at Hong Kong, that he was -

signed, on the SS. "Olydefield" at Hong Kong on June 13, 1962, and 

there-is no notation Concerning discharge. Exhibit2 also states that' 

respondent. CATIIS ■ to the United. States, on. the SS "Hindustan" in • 

1961 or 1962 and was refused shore leave rand that he arrived at New 

York on September 4, 1962, ort 'the SS. "Olydefield". The fact that 

As book contains no,', notation that he was: discharged from the 

`Clydefield" is .consistent his statement that he arrived in New 

fork on that ship on September .4, 1962, and did not depart with 

Lis vessel.* 

In. his brief ,aseorspanying the appeal counsel again 'challenges the 

,reeeediog, stating that the rules of evidence have been ignored, that 

Exo "resident'alien".is 'entitled to a fair hearing, that the admission 

ito evidence of information from the respondent's Hong Kong seatan's discharge bocik -i.§ eirbr,lhat there was failure to authehticate 

Us document and that no foundation as to the document itself was 

' Counsel contends that the information contained in the sea-. 

an's book was hearsay, and that withotit the book there is nothing 

490 
Interim Decision #1552 

in the record to support the special inquiry officer's order of deportation to Hong Kong. The special inquiry officer overruled counsel's 

objections. 

On advice of counsel respondent elected to remain mute at the reopened hearing, as he had at the original hearing. Counsel contends 

that respondent should be endowed with the same privilges and im-

'inunities as the defendant in a criminal proceeding who is shielded 

with the cloak of innocence and cannot be compelled to give testimony against himself. This contention was discussed and dismisaed 

by Bilokunvsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, wherein Mr. Justice Brandeii 

stated: 

Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character . . . there is no 

rule of law which prohibits officers charged with the administration of the 

Immigration law from drawing' an Inference from the Silence of one who lo 

called upon to speak ... A person arrested on the preliminary warrant is not 

protected by a presumption of innocence iri a criminal case. These is no provision Which forbids drawing an adverse inference from the fact of standing 

mute. 

_ • 

• So far as we are aware, the rule is still that elucidated in Bilokurnsky v. Tod. United Etates v. Sahli, 216 F.2d 33, 39 (7th Cir., 1954), 

and Catean o -v. Shaughnessy, 133 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.N.Y.,.1955), 

rely on Bilolounisky and reject the argument that a person in deportation proceedings should. be surrounded by the same safeguards as 

a person charged with crime. In Caetano the court says, "Sufficient - 

answer to this position is that the courts lave uniformly held to the 

contrary", citing cases. 

In Hatter of Psarelis, 7 I. & N. Dec. 133, wherein the Board held 

that-the alien's preliminary sworn statement may. be relied upon as 

evidence of deportabili,ty, there was no other evidence but the inference drawn from the alien's silence: In Matter of Rupino -Soares, 

7 I. & N. Dec. 271, and Matter of Darner, 5 I. & N. Dec. 738, we also 

held that refusal to testify without legal justification concerning 

matter of alienage, time and place -of entry, and lack of proper 

documents, justifies the drawing of unfavorable inferences. 

We are not left in - the instant case to draw inferences from respondent's silence. There is sufficient evidence to support a finding 

that he is an alien, illegally in the United States, and deportable as 

such. The information taken from the seaman's book was admissible 

for the purposes for which it was used here. We have no.doubt that 

one of its purposes is to establish the identity of its owner. 

In Abel v. Ignited States, 362 U.S. 217 (S.Q., March 28, 1960), 

Justice Frankfurter discussed the legality of the seizure and use of 

documents belonging to an alien under deportation proceedings—

forged birth certificate, a certificate of vaccination, a bank book, etc., 

401 
Interim Decision #1552 

all in false names, and said, "We can see no rational basis for excluding these relevant items from trial." Dote v. United States, 223 

F.2d 309, 310 (D.C. Cir., 1955), found that a series of evidentiary 

documents presented by the Government were admissible; among 

them was a birth register from Italy, a manifest showing voyages to 

this country of persons with names of appellant's family members, 

New York State census records including the family, including one 

Ninth the name of defendant. The court stated. (per Judge Prettyman) that this documentary evidence, if believed, made the conclusion as to respondent's alienage inescapable. 

This alien landed illegally in the United States. He offered nothing to controvert the evidence presented by the Government as to his 

citizenship and his place of prior residence abroad. Counsol'a roquest that this ease be returned for further hearing is frivolous when 

respondent has declined to testify in the two hearings that have been 

accorded him. He had adequate opportunity to be heard. The appeal will be dismissed. . 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 

492