Interim Decision #3107 

MATTER OF CHANG 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-27202715 

Decided by Board May 12, 1989 

(1) Implementation of the one couple, one child policy of the Chinese Government is not 

on its face persecutive and does not create a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of one of the five reasons enumerated in section 101(a)(42)(A) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (1982), even to the 

extent that involuntary sterilization may occur. 

(2) An individual claiming asylum for reasons related to the one couple, one child policy 

must establish that the application of the policy to him was in fact persecutive or that 

he had a well-founded fear that it would be persecutive because the policy was being 

selectively applied against members of a particular religious group or was being used 

to punish individuals for their political opinions or for other reasons enumerated 

under section 101(a)(42)(A) of the Act. 

(3) A person who shows that he opposed the one couple, one child policy but was 

subjected to it nevertheless has not demonstrated that he was being punished for his 

opinion as a member of a particular social group (persons opposed to the policy), but 

rather, there must be evidence that the governmental action arose for a reason other 

than general population control (for instance, evidence of disparate, more severe 

treatment for those who publicly oppose the policy). 

(4) If the applicant claims that action occurred at the hands of local officials, he must 

normally show that redress from higher officials was unavailable or that he has a wellfounded fear that it would be unavailable. 

(5) The policy guidelines announced by Attorney General Meese on August 5, 1988, 

regarding the one couple, one child policy do not apply to decisions by immigration 

judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

CHARGE: 

Orden Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)]—Entered without inspection 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Lebenkoff & Coven Jill H. Dufresne 

505 Fifth Avenue Deputy Chief Legal 

New York, New York 10017 Officer 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members 

In a decision dated December 18, 1986, the immigration judge 

found the respondent deportable on the charge set forth above and 

38 
Interim Decision #3107 

denied his applications for asylum, withholding of deportation, and 

voluntary departure. The respondent has appealed from the denial of 

those applications. The appeal will be dismissed, except insofar as it 

concerns the denial of voluntary departure. The request for oral 

argument is denied. 

With respect to his applications for asylum and withholding of 

deportation under sections 208(a) and 243(h) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a) and 1253(h) (1982), the respondent, a 33-year-old native and citizen of the People's Republic of 

China, made the following assertions. In his application for asylum, 

the respondent indicated that he was an anti-Communist who fled his 

homeland "because of Communist domination of China"; that he did 

not base his asylum claim on conditions in China that affected his 

freedom more than the rest of the country's population; and that 

neither he nor any member of his immediate family had "ever been 

mistreated by the authorities of his home country." His asylum 

application did not reference any claim to asylum based on his 

country's population control measures and he did not allege any 

mistreatment arising from such policies. 

At his deportation hearing, the respondent testified that he was 

afraid of persecution in China; that people there were "mobilized" and 

"forced to do the bidding of the government"; that he and his wife 

were not given any work to do; that he and his wife were forced to flee 

from their commune because they had two children and did not agree 

to stop having more children; and, that they disagreed with China's 

family planning policies because "in the countryside, especially in the 

farming areas, we need more children." He indicated that the 

"government" wanted him to go to a clinic to be sterilized, that he 

thought the operation would "harm" his body, that he did not want to 

be sterilized, and that if he returned to China he would be forced to 

submit to the operation. He testified that his wife was supposed to go 

to the clinic but did not do so because she was ill. He testified that be 

did not know what would have happened if his wife had gone to the 

clinic. He further testified that he did not mention his opposition to 

China's birth control policies on his asylum application because 

"nobody had, asked [him]" and because he was not very "conversant" 

in expressing himself and did not understand English. 

On appeal, the respondent, through counsel, states that the facts of 

the case are that he and his wife were ordered by their commune to 

submit to sterilization operations after the birth of their second child, 

that his wife was able to "postpone" the operation dine to illness, but 

that he fled China because he had no choice other than to submit to 

the surgery. 

In conjunction with the appeal, the respondent also submitted a 

10 
Interim Decision #3107 

letter from the Library of Congress dated November 23, 1987, 

transmitting to the Immigration and Naturalization Service a report 

entitled "Population Control in the People's Republic of China." The 

report was apparently requested by the Service in connection with 

another matter.' According to the report, the People's Republic of 

China ("PRC") has no national law on population control per se. The 

constitution provides that the state shall carry out family planning to 

control the size of the population and that spouses have the duty to 

carry out family planning. The Marriage Law of 1980 sets minimum 

marriage ages and places responsibility for birth control on both 

partners. The provinces and the cities governed directly by the state 

have enacted their own regulations on population control, but the 

population control program is guided by a joint directive of the 

Chinese Communist Party and the state entitled "On the Further 

Implementation of Family Planning Work" of February 1982. The 

policy provides that state cadres and urban residents are allowed one 

child per couple, with exceptions when special permission is granted. 

In rural areas generally the one-child rule is applied, except that where 

there are special difficulties, such as the birth of a handicapped child 

who cannot work, application to have a second child can be made. In 

no case in a third birth to be permitted. The rules are more leniently 

applied to families of non-Han ethnic minority groups. Late in 1985, it 

was announced that the one-child rule would be relaxed, and that in 

some areas a second child would be permitted if the first was a girl and 

in other special circumstances. The mechanics of the implementation 

of the program are by and large locally determined. Economic 

sanctions, peer pressure, and propaganda are used to insure compliance. Single child families receive health and educational benefits for 

the child_ Couples who continue pregnancies which are not allowed 

may suffer the suspension of wages, fines, loss of seniority for 

promotion, and so forth. Couples are urged to undergo birth control 

operations (sterilization). Wages are sometimes paid during a rest 

period after sterilization, and cash rewards have been used to 

encourage sterilization. The Chinese Government has consistently 

denied supporting any use of force to obtain compliance with birth 

quotas. The transmittal letter forwarding the report states that 

punishment in the form of a sterilization operation is not provided for 

Counsel for the respondent states that the Service is aware of this report. The sources 

cited in the report were not furnished to the Board in connection with this appeal and it 

is not known whether they were furnished to the Service by the Library of Congress. The 

Service, however, has not objected to consideration of this report. On appeal, 

respondent has also referenced newspaper articles and various other non-legal sources 

which were not offered into evidence at the hearing and whose texts have not been made 

available to this Board. These latter sources will not be considered. 

An 
Interim Decision #3107 

in Chinese law, though local officials may have used the one-child 

campaign to carry out a private vendetta. 

Counsel also relies on the 1985 and 1987 Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices, Joint Committee of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives, 99th Congress, 2d Session (1986), and 

100th Congress, 2d Session (1988) ("Country Reports"), respectively. 

The 1985 Country Report on the PRC indicates that 

[deported instances of family planning malpractice occur mostly in rural areas, 

where local officials have sometimes translated the policy into rigid quotas. Chinese 

authorities say they take measures against local officials who violate the Government's policy in this regard, but there have been few reports of punishment of such 

offenders. 

1985 Country Reports at 741. According to the 1987 report, provinces 

are allowed to make their own regulations regarding implementation 

of the one-child policy as long as overall birthrates match the stateimposed goals. In the past, local officials coerced significant numbers 

of women into having abortions. In 1987 the Chinese Government 

stressed repeatedly that it does not condone forced abortions or 

sterilizations. Chinese authorities have said that they take measures 

against local officials who violate the Government's policy. Despite 

central government efforts to prevent the imposition of rigid quotas, 

local government officials and peers reportedly continue to exert 

pressure on some persons seeking to have second children. Economic 

pressure on families with more than two children can be severe and 

can include loss of party membership, loss of job, difficulty in 

purchasing state-supplied seed, fertilizer, and fuel and other sanctions. 

1987 Country Reports at 666.2 

2 In addition to the excerpts quoted by the respondent, we note the following relevant 

excerpts from the Country Reports on the PRC: 

Implementation [of the family planning program] has varied widely from place to 

place. Although coercive family planning is contrary to official Chinese policy, there 

have been numerous reliable reports of coercive birth control practices, including 

forced abortions and sterilization.... 

1985 Country Reports at 738. 

Extensive regulation of individual and family life is one of the distinctive features of 

the Chinese sociopolitical system. For most Chinese (particularly urban residents), life 

revolves around the work unit, which provides not only employment, but also 

housing, ration coupons, permission to marry and have a child, and other aspects of 

ordinary life.... 

Faced with one-fifth of the world's population squeezed onto 7 percent of the world's 

arable land, China's leaders have made family planning a top national priority. They 

believe that economic modernization goals will be unattainable without a low birth 

rate, particularly given the current high number of females of childbearing age, 

traditionally high Chinese birth rates, and recent medical advances leading to longer 

life expectancies. To achieve its goal of limiting China's population to 1.2 billion in 

the year 2000, the Government is discouraging early marriage and promoting as an 

41 
Interim Decision #3107 

An applicant for asylum must establish that he was persecuted, or 

that a reasonable person in his circumstances would fear persecution 

on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion. See sections 101(a)(42)(A), 208(a) of 

the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ I101(a)(42)(A), 1158(a) (1982); INS v. CardozaFonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987); Carcamo-Flores v. INS, 805 F.2d 60 (2d 

Cir. 1986); Guevara Flores v. INS, 786 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. 

denied, 480 U.S. 930 (1987); Matter of Vigil, 19 I&N Dec. 572 (BIA 

1988); Matter of Mogharrabi, 19 I&N Dec. 439 (BIA 1987). The 

respondent bears the evidentiary burdens of proof and persuasion in 

any application for asylum under section 208(a) or withholding of 

deportation under section 243(h) of the Act. 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.5, 

242.17(e) (1988); Rebollo-Jovel v. INS, 794 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1986); 

Matter of Maldonado-Cruz, 19 I&N Dec. 509 (BIA 1988); Matter of 

Acosta, 19 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), modified on other grounds, 

Matter of Mogharrabi, supra; see also Young v. United States Dept. of 

Justice, INS, 759 F.2d 450 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 996 (1985). 

We recognize, as have the courts, the difficulties faced by many aliens 

ideal a norm of one child per family, backed by a massive, grassroots institutional 

effort involving education, contraceptive counseling, free contraceptive devices, and 

economic and social incentives and disincentives. 

1985 Country Reports at 740.41 (emphasis added). 

The effect of the economic reforms and the central policy of relaxing social controls in 

the rural areas has influenced the implementation of the birth-planning policy. In 

February the State Statistical Bureau published the results of a population sampling 

which indicated that 3.12 million more babies were born in 1986 than in 1985, 1.6 

million more than the number planned for 1986. The increase was attributed to the 

rise in the number of multiple births and to the increased number of people of 

marriageable and childbearing age. According to the survey, in 1986 the crude birth 

rate rose to 20.7 per thousand compared to 17.8 per thousand in 1985. There was a 

slight decrease in the rate of abortions. The number of first births in 1986 was 51.2 

percent of the total, second births were 31.5 percent of the total, and third or more were 

17.3 percent. Only 15 percent of all couples of childbearing age have signed a one-child 

pledge. 

After years of resisting the view held widely outside China that the PRC had to take 

steps to limit the growth of its population, now at 1.08 billion, the post-Mao reform 

leadership decided to institute family planning program& During 1986-1987, China's 

leaders reiterated that family planning is a top national priority and expressed concern 

that the Government's policy has not been uniformly implemented in the past 12 

months. The Government cited particular concern over the current unusually high 

number of females of childbearing age, increasing birth rates, and recent medical 

advances leading to longer life expectancies as reasons for renewed efforts to achieve 

its goal of limiting China's population to around 1.2 billion in the year 2000. Early in 

1986, authorities began a massive campaign to extend education, contraceptive 

counseling, free contraceptive devices, and economic and social incentives down to 

the grassroots level. 

1987 Country Reports at 665 (emphasis added). 

42 
Interim Decision #3107 

in obtaining documentary or other corroborative evidence to support 

their claims of persecution. Although every effort should be made to 

obtain such evidence, the lack of such evidence will not necessarily be 

fatal to the application. The alien's own testimony may in some cases 

be the only evidence available, and it can suffice where the testimony 

is believable, consistent, and sufficiently detailed to provide a 

plausible and coherent account of the basis for his fear. Matter of 

Mogharrabi, supra; see also, e.g., Blanco-Comarribas v. INS, 830 F.2d 

1039 (9th Cir. 1987). 

In support of his appeal from the denial of his applications for 

asylum and withholding of deportation, the respondent makes a 

number of arguments to which we shall respond in turn. 

The respondent initially submits that the Board should apply to this 

case certain "policy guidelines" announced by Attorney General 

Meese on August 5, 1988. These guidelines, however, were directed to 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service, rather than the immigration judges and this Board. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 2.1, 3.1, 236.1, 236.3, 

242.2(d), 242.8(a) (1988); United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 

347 U.S. 260 (1954). The Service's apparent position is that the case 

before us on its facts does not come within the scope of the guidelines 

the Attorney General has directed "will be used by the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service in considering asylum requests from 

[individuals who cite a fear of persecution upon return to the PRC for 

having violated that country's 'one couple, one child' planning 

policy]." 

The respondent's position on appeal is that he has a well-founded 

fear of persecution based on the likelihood he would face mandatory 

sterilization, that he has a reasonable fear of persecution as a member 

of a "particular social group" (namely, persons who actually oppose 

the government policy of "one child per family"), and that he is 

eligible for withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Act 

because he has demonstrated a clear probability of being sterilized if 

returned to China. 

We do not find that the "one couple, one child" policy of the 

Chinese Government is on its face persecutive. China has adopted a 

policy whose stated objective is to discourage births through economic 

incentives, economic sanctions, peer pressure, education, availability 

of sterilization and other birth control measures, and use of propaganda. Chinese policymakers are faced with the difficulty of providing for 

China's vast population in good years and in bad. The Government is 

concerned not only with the ability of its citizens to survive, but also 

with their housing, education, medical services, and the other benefits 

of life that persons in many other societies take for granted. For China 

to fail to take steps to prevent births might well mean that many 

43 
Interim Decision #3107 

millions of people would be condemned to, at best, the most marginal 

existence. The record reflects that China was in fact encouraged by 

world opinion to take measures to control its population. 

There is no evidence that the goal of China's policy is other than as 

stated, or that it is a subterfuge for persecuting any portion of the 

Chinese citizenry on account of one of the reasons enumerated in 

section 101(aX42)(A) of the Act. The policy does not prevent couples 

from having children but strives to limit the size of the family. It 

appears that exceptions are made so that couples facing certain 

hardships may have another child. The policy applies to everyone but 

expressly protects, and indeed is more leniently applied to, minority 

(non-Han) peoples within China. It appears to impose stricter 

requirements on Party members (state cadres) than on some non-Party 

members. The Chinese Government has stated that it does not 

condone forced sterilizations and that its policy is to take action 

against local officials who violate this policy. 

The population problem arising in China poses a profound dilemma. We cannot find that implementation of the "one couple, one 

child" policy in and of itself, even to the extent that involuntary 

sterilizations may occur, is persecution or creates a well-founded fear 

of persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership 

in a particular social group, or political opinion." This is not to say 

that such a policy could not be implemented in such a way as to 

individuals or categories of persons so as to be persecution on account 

of a ground protected by the Act. To the extent, however, that such a 

policy is solely tied to controlling population, rather than as a guise for 

acting against people for reasons protected by the Act, we cannot find 

that persons who do not wish to have the policy applied to them are 

victims of persecution or have a well-founded fear of persecution 

within the present scope of the Act. 

Thus, an asylum claim based solely on the fact that the applicant is 

subject to this policy must fail. An individual claiming asylum for 

reasons related to this policy must establish, based on additional facts 

present in his case, that the application of the policy to him was in fact 

persecutive or that he had a well -founded fear that it would be 

persecutive on account of one of the five reasons enumerated in 

section 101(a)(42)(A). For example, this might include evidence that 

the policy was being selectively applied against members of particular 

religious groups or was in fact being used to punish individuals for 

their political opinions. This does not mean that all who show that 

they opposed the policy, but were subjected to it anyway, have 

demonstrated that they are being "punished" for their opinions. 

Rather, there must be evidence that the governmental action arises for 

a reason other than general population control (e.g., evidence of 

44 
Interim Decision #3107 

disparate, more severe treatment for those who publicly oppose the 

policy). Finally, if the applicant claims that the punishment occurred 

at the hands of local officials, he must normally show that redress from 

higher officials was unavailable or that he has a well-founded fear that 

it would be unavailable. 

We note that the respondent has not shown that mandatory 

sterilization is or was authorized under regulations or programs in 

effect in Fukien province, whence he came, or that forced sterilization 

has in fact occurred in his locality. The Country Report for 1987 

reflects that 48.8% of the births in China in 1986 were second, third, or 

later births, which indicates that millions of persons in China were 

allowed or chose to have more than one child in that year. It also is 

support for the Chinese claim that the one-child policy is not routinely 

enforced by mandatory sterilization and abortion. The sole evidence at 

the hearing regarding this respondent's claim was his asylum application itself and his testimony. His testimony was simply not sufficiently 

detailed to provide a plausible and coherent account of the basis of his 

asylum claim and was contradicted by other information in the record. 

His asylum application undermines his testimony as it disclaims any 

mistreatment by the Government and does not refer to any fear 

stemming from China's population control measures. However, even if 

we accept the characterization of the evidence as set forth by the 

respondent on appeal (i.e., that he -and his wife wished to have more 

than two children and he would be forced to undergo mandatory 

sterilization if returned to China), we would not find that evidence 

sufficient in itself to support a well-founded fear of persecution on 

account of a reason enumerated in section 101(a)(42)(a) of the Act. 

The respondent has not asserted or established that he was treated 

differently from other Chinese with respect to application of the "one 

couple, one child" policy, or that its application in his case was in 

reality a guise to achieve a governmental goal other than general 

population control. 

Such a showing cannot be made by arguing that there is a 

"particular social group" made up of those persons who "actually" 

oppose the policy of "one couple, one child," and that the evidence 

that this "group" is persecuted is simply the fact that the policy is 

applied to them despite their opposition to it. If a law or policy is not 

inherently persecutive (as would be, for example, a law enacted to 

punish individuals because of their religious beliefs), one cannot 

demonstrate that it is a persecutive measure simply with evidence that 

it is applied to all persons, including those who do not agree with it. 

This is true even where questions of conscience or religion may be 

involved. In the United States, there are numerous cases upholding the 

imposition of religiously neutral laws against persons whose religious 

45 
Interim Decision #3107 

beliefs conflicted with them. See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 

252 (1982) (imposition of Social Security taxes against Amish persons 

whose religious beliefs forbade payment of the taxes or receipt of the 

benefits did not interfere with the free exercise of their religion); 

United States v. Merkt, 794 F.2d 950, 954-57 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. 

denied, 480 U.S. 946 (1987) (conviction for illegally transporting aliens 

not barred by first amendment although defendants contended they 

were religiously motivated in conducting "sanctuary" activities), and 

cases cited therein. 

The respondent submits that the freedom to have children is an 

absolute right under the 14th amendment to the United States 

Constitution and, for that reason, countries that abridge this right 

must be found to be engaging in acts of persecution. The resolution of 

the constitutional issues that could arise if the population problems 

underlying the implementation of the "one couple, one child" policy 

in China were to occur in the United States is a matter of speculation 

that it is hoped this country need never address. However, the fact that 

a citizen of another country may not enjoy the same constitutional 

protections as a citizen of the United States does not mean that he is 

therefore persecuted on account of one of the five grounds enumerated 

in section 1 01(a)(42)(A) of the Act. 

The respondent points out that Congress has chosen to provide 

financial aid only to countries that employ voluntary family planning 

techniques. It has prohibited the use of such aid to coerce or provide 

any financial incentive to any person to undergo sterilization, or for 

the performance of involuntary sterilizations as a method of family 

planning, or for biomedical research relating to methods of performing 

abortions or involuntary sterilization as a means of family planning. 

However, the fact that Congress may strongly disapprove of a foreign 

country's policy does not mean that Congress has found that the policy 

involves "persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion."' 

The respondent submits that involuntary sterilization is both a 

violation of fundamental human rights and a denial of the "right to 

life, liberty, and ... security" within the meaning of 22 U.S.C. 

§ 2151n(a) (1982), which restricts the use of international development funds in countries which engage in a consistent pattern of gross 

violations of internationally recognized human rights. However, even 

3The respondent also states that on July 11, 1985, the House of Representatives 

"passed legislation-accusing China of coercive gm-ill/Aden and abortion programs. 

While the House passed a bill on that date with such a provision, it was dropped from 

the final legislation. See H.R. Rep. No. 237, 99th Cong., lst Sess. 101, 105, 118, 

reprinted in 1985 U.S.C.C.A.N. 210, 214, 227. 

46 
Interim Decision #3107 

if involuntary sterilization was demonstrated to be a violation of 

internationally recognized human rights, 4that fact in itself would not 

establish that an individual subjected to such an act was a victim of 

persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 

particular social group, or political opinion." We are satisfied that if 

an individual demonstrated a well-founded fear that such an act would 

occur "on account of a reason protected by the Act, the "refugee" 

definition in section 101(a)(42) of the Act would be met. 

The issue before us is not whether China's population control 

policies, in whole or in part, should be encouraged or discouraged to 

the fullest extent possible by the United States and the world 

community. The issue is whether the respondent demonstrates persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, 

religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or 

political opinion simply with evidence that he and his wife desire to 

have more than two children and that, because of China's populatiOn 

control measures, he may be subjected to mandatory sterilization. 

Where there is no evidence that the application of the policy is a 

subterfuge for some other persecutive purpose, we do not find that he 

demonstrates eligibility for asylum by this evidence alone. Whether 

these policies are such that the immigration laws should be amended 

to provide temporary or permanent relief from deportation to all 

individuals who face the possibility of forced sterilization as part of a 

country's population control program is a matter for Congress to 

resolve legislatively. 

On the record before us we find that the respondent's claims are 

insufficient to establish that he has a well-founded fear of persecution 

on account of one of the five grounds enumerated in section 

101(a)(42)(A) of the Act. Because the respondent has failed to 

demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution, he has necessarily 

failed to demonstrate a clear probability of it. See, e.g., INS v. 

Cardoza-Fonseca, supra; Carcamo-Flores v. INS, supra; Guevara Flores 

v. INS, supra. Therefore, the respondent has failed to show that he 

qualifies for withholding of deportation. 

The immigration judge denied the respondent's application for 

voluntary departure as a matter of discretion solely because the 

respondent made no reference to a lawful permanent resident sister on 

his request for asylum and mentioned a citizen "cousin" on the 

4The State Department is required to make reports on human rights violations under 

22 U.S.C. § 2151n(d)(1) (1982), which was amended in 1987 to require in addition a 

report on "practices regarding coercion in population control, including coerced 

abortion and involuntary sterilization." Pub. L. No. 100-204, Title I, § 127(1), 101 Stat. 

1342 (1987). 

47 
Interim Decision #3107 

application, who appeared 'to be a pure fabrication." However, the 

Service does not challenge the respondent's testimony at the hearing 

regarding his relatives or the fact that he has a lawful permanent 

resident sister. We are not satisfied that the reference to a "cousin" on 

the asylum application was not simply caused by error, particularly as 

the closer, and more significant, familial relationship was not referenced. As this was the sole basis underlying the immigration judge's 

discretionary denial of voluntary departure and as the respondent does 

have a relative in the United States who at least potentially could file a 

preference visa petition on his behalf, considering the record in its 

entirety we will grant the respondent the privilege of voluntary 

departure in the exercise of discretion. 

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed except insofar as it 

pertains to the denial of voluntary departure. 

ORDER: The appeal.is dismissed except insofar as it concerns 

the denial of voluntary departure. 

FURTHER ORDER: The outstanding order of deportation is 

withdrawn, and in lieu of an order of deportation the respondent is 

allowed to depart voluntarily, without expense to the Government, 

within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond 

that time as may be granted by the district director and under such 

conditions as he may direct. In the event of the respondent's failure so 

to depart, the order of depertation will be reinstated and executed.[*] 

[*]By order of the Board dated /sprit 5, 1990, pursuant to a motion of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service, deportation proceedings in this case were reopened and 

terminated as improvidently begun. 

48