Interim Decision #1647 

MATTER OF Hanik 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14493789 

Decided by Board October 24, 1905 And March, 1,1966 

Affirm,ed by Attorney General September 30, 1966 

An alien who, in behalf of his employer, a Hong Kong manufacturer of custom 

made men's clothing. 'travels to various cities in the United Stateqto take 

orders from, and the measurements of, 'prospective eflatomers whom be 

does not solicit but by whom he is contacted as the result of literature 

distributed in this country by his employer; who sends the order, together 

with the purchase price, to his employer in Hong Kong; and who receives 

only expense money while in this country, his monthly saiary being sent 

to his parents in India by his employer, is engaged in intercourse of a 

commercial character, and, having indicated he would return to Hong Kong 

at the termination of his authorized stay, his sojourn here is of a temporary character, and he Is eligible for nonimmigrant classification as a 

visitor for business under section 101(a) (15)•(B) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. 

CHARGES 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9) [8 13.8.0. 1251(a) (9)3—Failed to 

maintain status of admission—Visitor for business. 

Lodged: Aet of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 HMG, 1251(a) (1)3—Immigrant 

without visa [section 212(a) (20), 8 U.S.C. 1182 

(a) (20)1. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the special 

inquiry officer dated April 8, 1965 finding the respondent deportable 

on the charge contained in the order to show cause and upon the 

lodged charge, granting him voluntary departure with the further 

order that if he failed to depart when and as required he be deported 

to Hong Kong, in the alternative, to India. 

The record relates to a native and citizen of India, 28 years old, 

male, single, who last entered the United States at Detroit, Michigan 

on or about February 12, 1965 at which time he was admitted to the 

824 
Interim Decision #1647 

United States as a visitor for business until April .14, 1965. He, 

had originally entered the United- States on. or about September 14, 

1963 at Honolulu, Hawaii as a visitor for business authorized to 

remain in the United. States until March 14,_ 1964. On August 26, 

1964 the respondent applied for an extension of his temporary stay, 

setting forth-the reason therefor that it was for the puipose, of ‘`for 

further study of market'? On tbsi basis of this application on 

August 27, 1964 he was granted an extension of his stay in the 

'United States as a visitor for business fora period to expire April 

14, 1965. The order to show cause was served March 2, 1965 and 

the hearing in deportation proceedings was held an March ,25, 1965. 

At the deportation hearing the respondent presented an Indian 

passport issued at Hong Kong on May 19, 1962 valid to May 18, 

1965. The passport contains a '93-1" nonimmigrant visa issued to 

him at the American Embassy at Hong Kong on September 4, 1963 

valid for an unlimited number of admissions to the United. States, 

to March 4, 1964. The application for a passport (Es. 2) indicates 

that a Mr. Melwani, manager of Mohan's, the respondent's employer, 

appeared. at the Consulste on March 15, .1963 and stated that the , 

respondent would be selling clothes at the New York store. On , 

September 4, 1963 the applipation for a visa contains a notation that 

Mr. Melwani has submitted a statement indicating that the respondent is being sent to take .orders for the Hong, Kong. store and the 

visa was issued on that date to the respondent. , 

The facts-concerning the nature of the respondent's emplOyment 

are not in dispute., The respondent, in behalf of his employer, 

Mohan's, Ltd., of Hong Kong, travels to various cities in the United 

States taking the customers'. measurements., The purchase price of 

the merchandise is sent to the einployer t in:Hang Kong, either bythe respondent or directly by the customer. .The -respenderit testified 

that he does not solicit customers in the United States but takes 

orders only from persons who contact him as a result of literature 

distributed byhis employer in thi.sconntry making' knolln his itinerary, the items he has .available for sale and in.,..ndiat hotel he may 

be contacted. 

The respondent testified that he works on a straight salary basis 

plus an allowance for living and business expense's. 'His saliry is 

$60 Hong tong a rnonth, - anNiuntirig- to approximately -$100 U.S. , 

He testified he receives no percentage of the value of • the orders -

which he takes but might receive a bonus depending on the volume 

of business upon his return to -Hong Kong: :While the 'respondent 

is in the United States his employer sends his monthly salary 'to his 

825 
Interim Decision #1647 

parents in India. The expense money is estimated to amount to 

about $800 per month. He has no other income than that received 

from his employment by Mohan's Ltd., of Hong Kong. 

The respondent has denied that the use of the terms "study the 

United States business market" and "further study of business 

market" in his applications for extension of temporary stay (Exs. 

3 and 4) were designed to be vague or misleading. He explained 

that according to his understanding, further study of the market 

is the same as the business he was doing: a notice would be sent to 

Hong Kong and the company in Hong Kong would obtain a further 

extension for the study of the market because they would have 

knowledge of how much more business they could secure from the 

United States and he would inform them as to colors and styling 

which would be in fashion in the United States (pp. 36-37, 57-59). 

the record indicates that the respondent'S employer in Hong Kong 

buys American textiles. The respondent also testified that his employer formerly made sales in this country entirely through the use 

of catalogs and other literature and that the individual under such 

circumstances took his own measurements and then sent the orders 

to Hong Kong. The respondent displays swatches of materials and 

he takes measurements in order to overcome complaints arising out 

of poor fit. The price of men's suits varies from $75 to $95, including the customs duty which must be paid by the puichaser upon 

receipt of his suit, the duty averaging about 20 percent of the cost 

of the garment which is custom made. The respondent's absence to 

Canada on or about February 12, 1965 was only for a few hours and 

apparently he was admitted upon the basis of his nonimmigrant 

visa. 

Section 101(a) (15) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

defines the term "immigrant" to mean every alien except an alien 

who is within one or more of the following classes of nonimmigrant 

aliens: 

(B) an alien (other than one coming for the purpose of studying or of 

performing skfiled or unskilled labor or as a representative of foreign press, 

radio, nba. or other foreign information media coming to engage in such 

vocation) having a residence in a foreign country which he bas no intention 

of abandoning and who is visiting the United States temporarily for business 

or temporarily for pleasure; • • • 

Under the heading of "TEMPORARY VISITORS", 22 CM 

41.25 provides: 

Temporary visitors for business and pleasure. 

(a) An alien shall be classified as a nonimmigrant visitor for business or 

Pleasure if he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer that he 

826 
Interim Decision 4t1647 

qualifies under the provisions of section 101(a) (15) (B) of the Act and 

that: (1) he intends to depart from the 'United 'States at the expiration 

of his temporary stay; (2) he has permission to enter some foreign country 

upon the termination of his temporary stay; and (3) adequate financial provisions have been made to enable him to carry out, the purpose of his visit 

and to travel to, sojourn in, and depart from the Baited Stater:. 

(b) The term "business", as used in section 101(a) (15) (B) of the Act, 

refers to legitimate activities of a commercial or professional character. 

It does not include purely local employment or labor for hire. An alien 

seeking to enter as a nonimmigrant for employment- or labor pursuant to a 

contract or other prearrangement shall be required to qualify under the 

provisions of section 41.65. An alien of distinguished merit and ability 

seeking to enter the United States temporarily with the idea of performing 

temporary services of an exceptional nature, requiring such merit and ability, 

but having no contract or other prearranged employment, may be classified 

as a nonimmigrant temporary visitor for business. 

The case is one of first impression.. Considerable difficulty has 

been experienced in the past in arriving at a clean and workable 

definition of "business" within the contemplation of the statute (Gordon and Rosenfeld, Immigration Law and Procedure, Sec. 2.8 (b) ). 

Soon after the term visitor for bgsiness was originally designated 

in the Act of 1924, the Supreme Court ruled that a primary aim of 

the statute was to protect .American labor against the influx of 

foreign labor, that "business" contemplated. only ."intercourse of a 

commercial character," and that persons who sought to make temporary visits to perform labor were not nonimmigrants.: The visitor 

for business designation was retained in the 1952 Act. The authors, 

Gordon and Rosenfeld, set forth on pages 127 to 129 of their book 

on "Immigration Laws and Procedures" numerous examples of cases 

that have been found by the Board to be bona fide nonimmigrants 

for business and those who have been found not to come within that 

designation. The significant considerations to be stressed are that 

there is a clear intent on the part of the alien to continue the foreign 

residence and not to abandon the existing domicile; the principal 

place of business and the actual place of eventual accrual of profits, 

at least predominantly, remains in the foreign country; the business 

activity itself need not be temporary, and indeed may long continue; 

the various entries into the United States made in the course thereof 

must be individually or separately of a plainly temporary nature in 

keeping with the existence of the two preceding considerations.: 

In the instant case.we are satisfied that the "business" in which the 

respondent was engaged was intercourse of a commercial character. 

2 liarnuth v. Albro, 279 U.S. 231 (1929). 

Matter of Cortez Vasquez, Int. Dec. No. 1342; Matter of G—P—, 4 L & N. 

Dec. 217; Matter of 6 L & N. Dec. 255, 

827 
Interim Decision #1647 

The respondent's salary is paid to him in Hong Kong (no funds 

accrue to the respondent in the United States). The American Consulate in Hong Kong, in granting the respondent the nonimmigrant 

visa as a visitor for business, had knowledge of the fact that the 

respondent was an order taker for the Hong Kong firm (Ex. 2).' 

His sojourn in. this country is of a temporary character, the respondent having. indicated that he would. return to Hong Kong upon the 

expiration of his temporary stay in the United States or extensions 

thereof. 

If the respondent were engaged in taking orders for suits at a 

wholesale level from large distributors, there would be no questioning 

his status. The fact that he takes the measurements of prospective 

customers in the United Stites; in connection with the business which 

he does not solicit but whose customers are attracted by literature 

sent out by the Hong Song firm, does not warrant a finding that 

the respondent is not classifiable as a visitor for business. The 

labor for the orders taken by the respondent is performed in Hong 

Kong and there appears to be no conflict with local labor. Upon a 

full consideration of the. evidence in the case, we are satisfied that 

the respondent falls within the category of visitor for business as set 

forth in the law and regulations. The appeal will be sustained. 

ORDER: It is ordered, that the appeal be sustained and • the proceedings terminated. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

The case comes• on motion of the Service dated December 20, 

190 requesting that our order of October 29,-1965 sustaining the 

alien's appeal and terminating proceedings- be reconsidered and the 

appeal be dismissed. . . . 

• Briefly, the record relates to a native and citizen of India, 28 years 

old, male, single, who last entered the United States at Detroit, ' 

Michigan on or about February 12, 1965 when he was admitted to 

the United States as a visitor for business until April 14, 1965. He 

had originally entered the United States on or about September 14, 

1963 at Honolulu, Hawaii as a visitor for business authorized to 

remain in the United States until March 11, 1964 which was subsequently extended to April 14, '1965. ' The order to show cause was 

served on "March 1965; the hearing in deportation proceedings 

was held on March 95; 1985; and an order of the special inquiry 

officer dated April 8, 1965 found the respondent deportable on the 

charge contained in the order to show cause and upon the lodged, 

charge, but granted him the privilege of voluntary departure with 

828 
Interim Decision #1647 

an automatic order of-deportation to Hong Kong or in the alternative, to India, in. the event he failed to depart as required. The 

prolongation of the time the respondent has spent- in the United 

States by virture of the appeal and the motion to reconsider has 

not been attributable to the respondent -but .from considerations 

arising out of the possible applicability of. 8 on- SA wherein the 

departure of the respondent might be considered as a withdrawal -of 

the appeal: . . - 

The facts as to the nature of the respondent's employment are not 

in dispute. In behalf of his employer, Mohan's Ltd., of HongKong, 

a manufacturer of custom or made :to :measure men's clothing, the 

respondent travels to various (titles. in_ the -United' States and takes 

orders from customers whom he does not solicit but -who contact him 

as the result of literature distributed by-his employer in this country 

making known his itinerary, the items he has available for sale and 

in what hotels he may be . contacted. - . The respondent _ displays 

swatches of .clothfrom which the..customer makes his choice rhe takes 

the customer's measurements and sends- the_order together with the 

purchase price to his employer- in Bong -Kong. This practice. succeeded a prior practice engaged in by the respondent's employer in 

which the employer made sales in-this country entirely through the 

use of catalogs, the -individual taking . his. 'own, measurements and 

then sending the order to Hong Kong. However, -complaints arose 

due to poor-fit and the present-procedure was adopted. The respondent earns a salary of about $100 a month plus a -bonus depending 

upon the. volume of his-business, the amount of such •onus being 

undisclosed. The employer sends respondent's salary to his parents 

in India and the respondent receives only expense money amounting 

to about $800 per month while in the :United States.. . 

Aware that the term - "visitor-for business" contemplated. only 

"intercourse of a commercial character," -1and bearing in.niind that 

the significant considerations to be stressed were that there is a clear 

intent. on the part of the alien to continue a. foreign residence and 

not to abandon any existing domicile; the principal place of business and the actual place of eventual accrual of Profits; at least predominantly, remains in the'foreign -cbuntry ; -the Iniainess activity 

itself need not be temporary and indeed 'May long Oontimie;'• the 

various entries in the United States made iii the Course thereof must 

be individually or separately of a plainly temporary nature in keeping with the existence of the two preceding considerations, we Ionid 

that the respondent fell within the category of a'irieifor for business 

I-Koltun!. v. A7bro, 279 U.S. 231. • 

829 
Interim -Decision #1641 

as set forth in the law and regulations. We found that the business was intercourse of a commercial character, and the fact that 

he took measurements of prospective retail customers in the United 

States in connection with the business, under the circumstances of 

the case, did not warrant a finding that the respondent was not 

classifiable as a visitor for business. 

We recognize that the line of demarcation between a visitor for 

business, and a person in seeking to enter as a nonimmigrant for 

employment or labor 'for which the procedure referred to 22 CFR 

41.55, the provisions of section 214(e) of the Act and the supporting evidence required by 8 CFR 214.2(h) (ii) is applicable, is sometimes difficult to draw. However, the Act in section 101(a) (15) (B), 

still retains the category of a visitor for business. There is no indication that Congress intended to eliminate this category. Upon 

a determination that the. business the respondent was engaged in 

was intercourse of a commercial character, and after carefully weighing the significant considerations set forth in prior administrative 

decisions, we came to the conclusion that the respondent was truly 

a visitor for business. The argument of the Service that the respondent is not a "businessman" within the meaning of the statute 

appears to be fallacious. The cases set forth in Matter of 9—, 6 

I. & N. Dee. 255, in note 3 list a great many cases in which it was 

held that the alien was entitled to the status of a temporary visitor 

for business. An examination of these cases shows that the great 

majority were aliens who could not be considered as "businessmen" 

or even skilled, but in every case there was involved international 

trade or commerce and the employment was a necessary incident 

thereto. 

Upon a full consideration of the matters set forth in the motion, 

we ail= our prior decision. The motion will be denied. 

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

denied. 

- BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

The decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in this case 

holding the respondent Hotu J. Hira alias Harry Hira to be a temporary visitor for business within section 101(a) (15) (B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been certified to me by the Board 

for review, pursuant to 8 CFR 3.1(h) (1) (iii), upon motion of the , 

Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization. 

For the reasons stated in the Board's opinions of October 29, 1965 

and March 1, 1966 the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

is affirmed. 

830