Interim Decision #2323 

MATTER OF SACCO 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-8955250 

Decided by Board October 11, 1974 

Respondent requested the Board to stay the deportation proceedings pending his application for Naturalization and the issuance by the immigration, judge of a subpoena for 

respondent's military service record. The Board is without jurisdiction to adjudicate 

interlocutory appeals. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(5) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(5)]—Failed to furnish notification of address or other information in compliance with the 

previsions of section 265 and has not established that such failure was reasonably excusable or was not.willful. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: David W. Walters, Esquire 

100 North Biscayne Blvd. 

Suite Rau 

Miami, Florida 33132 

Respondent appeals from two interlocutory decisions made by an 

immigration judge during the course of a deportation hearing. Oral 

argument is requested. Oral argument will be denied and the appeal will 

be dismissed. 

The record reflects that no final order of deportation has as yet been 

entered by the immigration judge. Among other things, an application 

under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act remains to 

be adjudicated. The notice of appeal states the subject matter of the 

appeal as follows: 

"Denial by the Immigration Judge of the final orders: 

"1. Denial of the Motion for Stay of Proceeding pending Action on the alien's request fur 

Naturalization Under Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

"2. Denial of the request for Issuance of Subpeona (sic) to the United States Army 

personal [sic] records relative to the respondents military service record." 

The decisions sought to be reviewed are interlocutory. The regulations defining this Board's jurisdiction permit us to review "Decisions of 

[immigration judges] in deportation cases," 8 CFR 3.1(b)(2). The 

regulations do not, in terms, preclude our consideration of appeals from 

109 
Interim Decision #2323 

interlocutory decisions of immigration judges. As a practical matter, we 

have construed the regulations as contemplating only appeals from final 

decisions. On appeal from a decision of an immigration judge, we review 

such interlocutory decisions as may be raised by the parties. To permit 

piecemeal review of interlocutory orders of an immigration judge at 

successive stages of a deportation proceeding before final decision would 

only open the door to obfuscation and delay. As a general rule, therefore, we may safely say that we have no jurisdiction under the regulations to adjudicate interlocutory appeals. 

In Matter of Fong, 14 I. & N. Dec. 670 (BIA 1974), we did review a 

decision of En immigration judge which was not final in form. We there 

stated (at p. 3), "The order entered by the immigration judge in this 

case, though interlocutory in form, is far-reaching in effect and raises an 

important issue in the administration of the immigration laws. The 

question is presented in a setting which gives it sufficient finality to 

warrant decision by us at this time." The same cannot be said of the case 

before us. 

We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. Oral 

agrument would serve no useful purpose. We are satisfied from our 

review of the record that the appeal is frivolous and filed solely for 

purpose of delay. We shall therefore deny oral argument under 8 C.F.R. 

3.1(d)(1-a)(iu) and dismiss the appeal summarily. We note, in passing, 

that the pendency of a deportation proceeding is no longer a bar to 

naturalization under section 329 of the Act. 

ORDER: Oral argument is denied. 

Further order: The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

110