Interim Decision #2923 

MATIMIt. OF RUIS 

In Deportatioxi Proceedings 

A-31199203 

Decided by Board September 80, 1982 

(1) Section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2), relates 

to any entry made by an alien who fails to submit to inspection. 

(2) A lawful permanent resident's deportability for entering without inspection may not 

be prevented by his subsequent departure and readmission to the United States upon 

presention of an Alien Registration Receipt Card. 

(A) The immigration judge improperly terminated deportation proceedings against a lawful permanent resident who entered the 'United States without inspection and subsequently departed and returned with his Alien Registration Receipt Card. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1069—Sec. 541(o)(2)(6 1261(a)(0))--Enatered without inspection 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF F SERVICE: 

Vincent Agresti, Esquire Joanna London 

56-58 Ferry Street Acting Appellate • 

Newark, New Jersey 07105 Trial Attorney 

By: Milhollan, Chairman, Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has appealed from a decision of the immigration judge dated May 28, 1981, terminating the 

proceedings against the respondent. The appeal will be sustained and 

the record will be remanded to the immigration judge. 

The respondent is a 41-year-old native and citizen of Colombia who 

was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on 

May 24, 1970. The record reflects that he left this country in order to 

return to Colombia and reentered surreptitiously from Mexico on January 4, 1978, in order to accompany his fiancee who was without proper 

documentatioh. The respondent was apprehended and on January 9, 

1978, was convicted on a plea of guilty for aiding and abetting his fiancee 

to make an illegal entry in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2 and 8 U.S.C. 1325. 

On September 5, 1978, the Service issued an Order to Show Cause 

charging the respondent with deportability under section 241(a)(2) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2), for entering 

the United States without inspection. The record reflects that the respon320 
Interim Decision #2923 

dent departed from the United States on March 24, 1979, and returned 

the next day, obtaining admission as a returning resident on the basis of 

his Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form 1-151). The respondent claims 

that he also went to Colombia on June 10, 1979, and was readmitted on 

September 7, 1979. 

On March 27, 1979, the respondent appeared for his deportation hearing and denied deportability. During the proceedings, he contended that 

he was no longer subject to deportation on the basis of his entry without 

inspection because he had subsequently made an entry as a lawful permanent resident: 

The immigration judge terminated the proceedings, concluding that 

section 241(a)(2) only applied to the last entry made by an alien and that 

the respondent's entries in March and September of 1979 with his Form 

1-151 eliminated entry without inspection as ground of .deportability. 

In reaching this decision, the immigration judge relied on two 1965 

cases issued by the Board which were not precedent decisions. Matter of 

Romero, A10 553 849 (BIA 'Tune 8, 1965); Matter of Gutierrez, A8 405 

405 (BIA. June 11, 1905). From these unpublished cases the immigration 

judge reasoned that a h wful permanent resident alien who had entered 

without inspection could avoid deportability by making a subsequent 

entry with his Form 1-151. He further dismissed the Service's contention that only a new visa application made with full disclosure of the 

respondent's entry without inspection would eliminate his deportability. 

On appeal, the Service argues that the immigration judge improperly 

terminated proceedings because the respondent should not be permitted to thwart the immigration laws by making an entry with his Form 

1-151 solely to prevent deportation on the entry without inspection 

charge. It is further contended that the immigration judge's reliance on 

the unpublished Board cases is misplaced. 

The issue before us, whether a deportation charge of entry without 

inspection relates only to the alien's last entry, appears to be one of first 

impression. The two unpublished Board decisions cited by the immigration judge do not mandate the rdsult sought by the respondent.' First, 

in Matter of Rim, A13 197 al (BIA April 25, 1978), the Board withdrew from the relevant language in the two cases, finding it to have 

been improvident. Furthermore, the cases did not stand for the proposition that only an alien's most recent entry can be the basis for an entry 

without inspection charge. Accordingly, the unpublished decisions cited 

by the immigration judge are not controlling on the question before us. 

Section 241(a)(2) of the Act provides for the deportation of any alien in 

the United States who: 

' We note that only decisions designated for publication by the Board serve as precedentsin other'proceedirigs involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. 3.1(g). 

321 
Interim Decision #2923 

entered the United States without inspection or at any time or place other than as 

designated by the Attorney Generator is in the United States in violation of this Act or 

in violation of any other law of the United States. 

The clear objective of this section is to protect' the integrity of the 

boundaries of the United States by requiring every alien to submit to 

inspection by immigration officials each time he enters this Country. See 

Es parts Callow, 240 F. 212 (D. Colo. 1916); lA C. Gordon and H. 

Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure section 4;8b (1982); see 

also, H.R. Rep. No. 1377, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in, [1952] 

U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1358, 1360. The Iaw requires not only that 

aliens be admissible to the United States, but that all entries be made 

pursuant to an inspection at an appropriately designated time and place. 

This statutory mandate is not satisfied by the fact that an alien may 

have been admissible had he properly presented himself for inspection 

or that he was subsequently inspected and permitted to enter. 

Nothing in the language of section 241(a)(2) indicates that Congress 

intended to limit its applicability to the most recent entry made by an 

alien. In this regard, we think it significant that, with respect to other 

sections of the statute, any entry may provide the basis for depoitation. 

See Belfrage v. Kenton, 224 F.2d 803 (2 Cir. 1955); Matter of C-, 4 I&N 

Dec. 596 (C.O. 1952, BIA 1953); but see Bonetti v. Rogers, 356 U.S. 691 

(1958) (membership in Communist party); Matter of Medina, 15 I&N 

Dec. 611 (BIA 1976), affd Medina-Luna v. INS, 547 F.2d 1171 (7 Cir. 

1977); Matter of C-, 5 I&N Dec. 370 (BIA 1953) (two crimes involving 

moral turpitude); Matter of S-, 7 I&N Dec. 536 (BIA 1957) (failure to 

notify Attorney General otiOress); Matter of P-, 5 I&N Dec. 651 (BIA 

1 954) (narcotics conviction); see also section 101(a)(13) of the Act, 8 

U.S.C. 1101(a)(13). The disposition of Congress to extend, rather than 

limit, the applicability of this section is also reflected by the elimination 

in the 1952 Act of previous statutory time limitations on deportation 

after an entry without inspection. See sections 241(a)(2) and (d) of the 

Act; cf. Act of Feb. 5, 1917, sec. 19(a), 39 Stat. 874; see also Barber v. 

Hong, 254 F.2d 382 (9 Cir. 1958); Matter of A-, 6 I&N Dec. 540 (BIA 

1955). Furthermore, the seriousness with which Congress regarded the 

act of entering the:United States without inspection is evidenced by the 

fact that criminal penalties have also been provided for the violation of 

that offense. See section 275 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1325; see also H.R. 

Rep. No. 1365, 82nd Cong., 2d Sass. 60, reprinted in, [1952] U.S. Code 

Cong. & Ad. 'News 1653, ITA. 

With these considerations in mind, we conclude that section 241(a)(2) 

of the Act relates to any entry made by an alien who fails to submit to 

inspection. Consequently, we find that the respondent's deportability 

for entering without inspection is not prevented by the mere fact that he 

departed and returned with his Form 1 -151. To hold otherwise would be 

322 
Interim Decision #2923 

to thwart the policies underlying the Act and to provide an opportunity 

for aliens to violate our immigration laws with impunity. 

We need not decide at this time whether an alien who has entered the 

United States without inspection will be forever subject to deportation 

in all circumstances.' See generally Matter of Rafipour, 16 I&N Dec. 

470 (BIA 1975); Matter of Sanchez, 16 I&N Dec. 363 (BIA 1977); Matter 

of R -0-, 8 I&N Dec. 128 (BIA 1958); Matter of S -, supra. Under the 

facts presented in this case, however, we conclude that the immigration judge improperly terminated the proceedings. The respondent 

remains deportable for entering without inspection because his subsequent departute and return with a Form 1-151 does not eliminate the 

grounds of deportability. 

Accordingly, the decision of the immigration judge will be reversed 

and the record will be remanded to the immigration judge for further 

proceedings. 

ORDER: The appeal is sustained. The decision of the immigration 

judge is reversed and the record is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with the foregoing opinion and the entry of a new decision. 

2 We would note in this regard that the Service has prosecutorial discretion to decline to 

pursue the deportation of an alien who has entered the United States without inspection 

despite his possession of documents. See Operations Instructions 235.9; see also section 

101(a)(13) of the Act. • 

323