Interim Decision #2828 

MATTER OF JOHN 

In Section 223 Reentry Permit Proceedings 

A-17777192 

Decided by Regional Commissioner June 10, 1980 

Applicant who had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident 

and who subsequently was absent for extended periods while performing missionary 

work in India for a recognized United States religious denomination, did not interrupt 

his lawful residence status and is eligible for reentry permit under section 223 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S.C. 1203. 

ON BEHALF OF PETHIONER: Robert Gilbert 

Baptist Mid-Missions 

4205 Chester Avenue 

Cleveland, Ohio 44108 

This matter is before me on appeal from the District Director's July 

30, 1979, denial of the application for issuance of a permit to reenter 

the United States. The appeal will be sustained. 

The District Director found that because his extended absences as a 

missionary to India could not be viewed as temporary, the applicant 

could not qualify as a returning resident. In reaching his determination, the District Director sought to match the applicant's situation 

with the statutory definition of residence at section 101(a)(33) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(33), as amended, 

holding that the applicant's "actual dwelling place in fact, without 

regard to intent" was India, not the United States and that the 

applicant could not, therefore, be considered a lawful permanent resident of the United States. 

I find a critical flaw in the District Director's reasoning. First, 

although the District Director compared the applicant's circumstances 

with the statutory definition of residence, he omitted another very 

important term defined by the Act at 101(a)(20): the term "lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence," which "means the status of having 

been lawfully accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the 

United States as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration 

law, such status not having changed." 

RQA 
Interim Decision #2828 

The applicant most certainly meets the first condition imposed by 

the above definition—he has been lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. Has his status changed? To answer this query we must look 

to other sections of the Act. Section 81'7 of the Act, which relates 

specifically to the question of retention of residence for the purposes of 

naturalization, provides for a finding that a lawful resident missionary 

whose absence from the United States has been solely for the purposes 

of performing ministerial functions of a religious denomination "shall 

be considered as being physically present in the United States for the 

purpose of naturalization within the meaning of section 316(a), not 

withstanding any such absence from the United States ...." While the 

matter at hand treats the question of retention of lawful permanent 

resident status rather than naturalization residence requirements, I 

believe the point has been made. It would be utterly inconsistent to 

hold on the one hand that the applicant's presence in India as a 

missionary for a recognized United States religious denomination is 

meaningfully interruptive of his lawfully permanent status, while on 

the other hand positing that absences for this reason are not only not 

interruptive of lawful residence status, but are actually considered as 

physical presence in the United States for naturalization purposes. 

For the sake then of assuring consistency between Titles II and III of 

the Immigration and Naturalization Act, I conclude that the applicant's status has not changed, that he continues to be an alien lawfully 

admitted for permanent residence, and that he is, therefore, eligible 

for issuance of the reentry permit he seeks. 

ORDER; The appeal is sustained.