Interim Decision #2289 

MATTER OF IDELS 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-17800136 

Decided by Board May 22, 197.4 

Notwithstanding respondent committed no fraud in connection with her admission for permanent residence as the unmarried daughter of a lawful permanent resident father, who, in fast, was not a lawful permanent resident, her 

innocent misrepresentations in that regard are sufficient to bring her within 

the purview of the provisions of section 241(f) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952•Section 241(a)(1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—Excludable at time 

of entry, not in possession of valid immigrant visa. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

K. Fred Ajluni, Esquire - Adolph F. Angelilli 

2432 Guardian Building Trial Attorney 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

The alien respondent is a native of Jerusalem and a citizen of 

Jordan. She was admitted to the United States in January of 1968 

as an immigrant on the basis of her status as the unmarried 

daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

Deportation proceedings were instituted when it appeared that the 

respondent was not in fact entitled to the status upon which her 

admission was predicated. In a decision dated July 31, 1973, the 

immigration judge found the respondent deportable, but granted 

her the privilege of voluntary departure. She has appealed that 

decision. The appeal will be sustained. 

The respondent's admission as an immigrant was based upon 

her father's status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 

residence. It was through her relationship to him that the respondent was accorded the preference which allowed her to immigrate to the United States in 1968. In August of 1972, however, the 

respondent's father was found to be excludable and he was denied 

admission as a returning resident immigrant. The respondent's 

father was ordered excluded primarily because he was found not 

to have been entitled to the immigrant visa which he had earlier 

received, and, accordingly, never to have qualified as an alien 

lawfully admitted for permanent residence. 

The Service's contention that the respondent's father never 

701 
Interim Decision #2289 

properly had a status capable of according immigration benefits to 

the respondent was an integral part of the case against the 

respondent; and the respondent held the Service to its burden of 

proof in this regard. In support of this portion of its case, the 

Service introduced a copy of the immigration judge's decision in 

the exclusion proceeding of the respondent's father. That opinion 

fully sets forth the facts upon which the respondent's father was 

found excludable. It is clear that the immigration judge there 

found the respondent's father to have been improperly admitted 

as a permanent resident. 

Counsel for the respondent did not object to the introduction 

into evidence of a copy of that decision. The respondent does assert 

that she was denied due process of law because she was not 

included as a party to the proceedings against her father, especially since the outcome of that case could have a material impact 

upon her presence in the United States. The respondent's contention in this regard appears to be premised on the assumption that 

the adjudication in the proceedings against her father is binding 

on her. This assumption is incorrect. 

The determination in the case of the respondent's father should 

be accorded considerable wleght in this proceeding. The decision 

there was similar to an adjudication of status; the opinion was not 

a summary order, but instead set forth fully the law and the facts 

upon which the result was predicated; except for the precise 

parties, the interest to be protected by the respondent's father in 

his case was identical to the interest which the respondent 

presently is protecting; and, the immigration judge in the case of 

the respondent's father imposed the same burden of proof on the 

Service which it bears in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the decision regarding the respondent's father is only evidence of the 

status to which he was entitled under the immigration laws; it is 

not conclusive of that status as against the respondent. Cf. Jung 

Yen Loy v. Cahill, 81 F.2d 809 (C.A. 9, 1936); Sanders v. Clark, 76 F. 

Supp. 489 (E.D. Pa. 1948). The respondent is free to challenge the 

accuracy of the determination in her father's case during these 

proceedings; however she was not entitled to be made a party in 

the case against her father.I 

' Compare U.S. ex rel. Harrington v. Sehlotfelelt, 136 F.2d 935 (C.A. 7, 1943), 

cert. denied sub nom., Krause v. United States, 327 U.S. 781 (1946), and 

Rosenberg v. United States, 60 F.2d 475 (C.A. 3,1932) (in which the courts refused 

to permit affected relatives to intervene in denaturalization proceedings), with 

Battaglino v. Marshall, 172 F.2d 979 (C.A. 2, 1949), cert. den., 338 U.S. 829 (1949) 

(in which a child of a denaturalized citizen was found not be be a citizen himself, 

but in which the court was careful to point out that the child did not claim his 

father's denaturalization to have been erroneous). 

702 
Interim Decision #2289 

The respondent has only vaguely asserted that the decision in 

her father's case was erroneous. She has failed to make a prima 

facie showing that her father was in fact entitled to status as an 

alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Accordingly, the 

copy of the decision in her father's case is the only substantial 

evidence bf record as to his proper status. The admissions of the 

respondent together with the documentary materials submitted 

by the Service constitute clear, convincing and unequivocal evidence that the respondent was excludable at entry as charged. 

On appeal the respondent has argued that the provisions of 

section 241(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act prevent her 

deportation on the charge contained in the Order to Show Cause. 

We agree 

Section 241(f) saves from deportation any alien who would have 

been deportable for procuring entry or documentation by fraud or 

misrepresentation, if the alien was otherwise admissible at entry 

and is the spouse, parent or child of a United States citizen or of 

an alien lawfully admitted for perrnanent residence. The respondent is the parent of two United States citizen children. The record 

indicates that she was admissible at entry under the "qualitative" 

provisions of the Act. The Service, however, argues that the 

respondent has not satisfied the requirements of section 241(f), 

because she had not committted the requisite fraud in obtaining 

entry or documentation. 

Although the record indicates that the respondent did not 

commit fraud in obtaining either her visa or entry, it is clear that 

she made an innocent misrepresentation in this regard. That 

innocent misrepresentation is sufficient to bring the respondent 

within the terms of section 241(1). Matter of Louie, Interim Decision No. 222.3 (BIA 1973); Matter of Lim, 13 I. & N. Dec. 169 (BLA. 

1969); Matter of Torbergsen, 13 I. & N. Dec. 432 (BIA 1969). 

A remand of this case appears unnecessary. Although the 

respondent raised her section 241(f) claim on appeal, the record 

adequately establishes the applicability of this provision. The 

proceedings will be terminated. 

ORDER; The appeal is sustained and the deportation proceedings against the respondent are terminated. 

703