Interim Decision #1490 

lirAT TER OF OALIDILLO—VILTALOBOS 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-8469070 

Decided By Board July 8, 1985 

Respondent is ineligible for a nano pro Vino waiver wader section 212(g), Immigration mid Nationality Aet, as amended, of the ground of excludability 

(section 212(a)(9)) existing at the time of his last entry in 1888, based 

on a claim of hardship to his alleged 'United States citizen wife whom 

he married on May 24;1995, and to the child of this union,'since this marriage did not exist at the time of his last entry. 

CHARGE • 

• 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1))--Convicted 

of crime involving moral turpitude—incest. 

Respondent, a 42-year-old married male alien, native and last a 

citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the United States for permanent 

residence in 19b3. In 1960 he was arrested in Juarez, Mexico, for 

incest and held for two months while awaiting trial; in 1961 hewas convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and 

six months (ha served no time under the sentence). Respondent last 

entered the United States on January 31, 1963. He was them 

excludable as one who had been convicted of a crime involving 

moral turpitude prior to his entry (section 212(a) (9) of the Act, 

-8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (9)). - 

We found respondent deportable (January 15, 1965) and we 

denied his application for a waiver, vow pro' tuna, under section 

212(g) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(g)) of the ground of excludability existing at the time of his last entry. The application for the 

waiver was based upon the claim that exclusion would result in 

extreme hardship to his United States citizen wife (Maria de Jesus 

Caudillo) and citizen daughter (Juanita. Caudillo). The applica 

tion was denied on the ground that respondent's deportation would 

not result in. extreme hardship to the citizens sincehe bad not lived 

with them for some time, since he had been deceitful in revealing 

259 
Interim Decision ; #1490 

the nature of the relations with them, and since he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. 

Respondent now requests that he be granted the waiver under 

section 219(g) of the Act because his deportation would'now result 

in extreme hardship to Eliza Subia, allegedly a United States citizen 

whom he married on May 24, 1965, and to the child of this union 

(Gabriel) who was born on .March 24, 1964; Eliza Subia, was 

expected to give birth to a second child 'shortly. 

The Service opposes the motion on :the ground that respondent is 

not eligible for a Tam pro tune waiver based on a claim of hardship 

to Eliza Subia and the child of this union since ha had not been 

married to her at the time of his last entry. The contention is well 

founded. 

We are not authorized to grant an advance waiver since the respondent requires a visa to enter the United States for permanent 

residence and we do not have the power to grant the relief under 

such circumstances (Matter of DeG— 8 I. & N. Dee: 325; Matter 

of DeF–:-, 8 L R N. Dec. 68). • 

(A motion for reconsideration or reopening was denied by the 

Board on April 21, 1965; the motion requested reconsideration 

under Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 347 U.S.• 449.) 

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

denied. 

260