MATTER OF 8 C Y 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-7956807 

Decided by Board September 4, 1958 

Adjustment of status—Section 211(c) and (d) of 1952 act—None pro tune exereiso porznissible whether entry occurred before or after effective date of act. 

The discretionary provisions of section 211(c) and (d) of the 1952 act may lie 

exercised nano pro tune in respect to entries which occurred prior, as well 

as subsequent, to December 24, 1952, the effective date of the act. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(s) (1) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (1)3—Excludable 

at time of entry—Section 13 of the Act of 1924—Not non-quota as 

specified. 

BEFORE TAE BOARD 

Discussion: This is an appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer finding the respondent deportable on the ground stated 

above and denying her application for relief under section 211(c) 

and (d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1181(c) 

and (d)). 

The respondent, a 30-year-old married female, a native and national of China, was admitted to the United States on February 1, 

951, as a nonouota immigrant upon surrender of a visa issued to 

her under the provisions of section 4(a) of the Immigration Act of 

1924, as the spouse of a United States citizen. In 1957 it was 

learned that her husband was not a citizen and these proceedings 

were brought. The record establishes that the respondent acted in 

good faith and that reasonable diligence could not have helped her 

determine that her husband was not a citizen. The special inquiry 

officer was of the opinion that relief under the Immigration and 

Nationality Act could not be granted because at the time the respondent entered the provisions of section 13(d) and (e) of the 

Immigration Art of 1924 (43 Stat. 153) were in effect, and under 

those provisions correction of the visa could be made only if a 

charge against the proper quota could be made in the fiscal year in 

which the visa was issued. The special inquiry officer held that 

since the fiscal year in which the visa had been issued expired on 

June 30, 1951, the respondent's status could no longer be adjusted. 

131 
It is true that under the Immigration Act of 1924 an entry 

with a nonquota visa which was defective because it had been 

issued to an inunigrant who was a quota immigrant could not be 

corrected after the passing of the fiscal year in which it was issued 

(Matter of F , A 6371634, 5 I. & N. Dec. 525). 1However, if 

the provisions of section 211 (c) and (d) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act of 1952 may be applied to the respondent's case, a 

different situation would exist for adjustments under this law may 

now be made if the quota is open for the fiscal year in which the 

State Department is requested by the AttornPy General to make 

a proper charge against the quota or in the fiscal year following 

submission of such notification (Matter of P , A-8789196, 7 

I. & N. Dec. 304). 

Counsel argues that the provisions of section 211(c) and (d i of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act do apply here, for these provisions were meant to be a continuation and liberalization of the 

corresponding provisions of the 1924 act. We believe the contention 

of counsel is well taken. The Immigration and Nationality Act 

is a codification of the immigration laws in effect prior to its promulgation, The previous act made provision for adjustment of the 

visa if the irregularity in the issuance was discovered in the fiscal 

year in which it was issued. This caused cases of hardship to perarms whn were without fault in obtaining their visas for the defect 

was often not discovered for years after the issuance of the visa. 

The Immigration and Nationality Act provision is of very broad 

scope. It permits adjustment of status to be made although years 

may have passed after the individual entered (Matter of 1?—, 

supra). In view of the fact that it must have been the knowledge 

of Congress that entries which occurred prior to the Immigration 

and Nationality Act would come to the attention of administrative 

authorities while the Immigration and Nationality Act was in 

effect, it is difficult to believe that Congress intended to make provision to take care of those who entered after 1952, but would 

exclude from the same relief those aliens who had even longer residence in the United States. 

In the absence of an express provision limiting the relief under 

section 211(c) and (d) to those who entered on and after the 

effective date of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we believe 

it is proper to find that Congress intended to grant the administrative authorities the power to take care of deserving cases of individuals issued visas to which, through no fault of their own, they 

were not entitled whether they entered before or after the effective 

date of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. We, there- 

+.It is to be noted that Matter of F—, A-0,371534, 5 I. & N. Dec. 525, does 

not consider the effect of the 19:52 act. 

132 
fore, believe that it is proper to grant the respondent the relief 

she requests. 

Order : It is ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer 

be and the same is hereby withdrawn. 

It i4 further ordered that the appeal be suattlined end proceedings 

be terminated and that the respondent be considered as having been 

admitted for permanent residence as a quota immigrant under the 

provisions of section 211(c) and (d) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act and that the proper charge be made to the quota. 

133