MAITER or T— 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-12184655 

Decided by Board March 13, 1961 

Extension of stay—Authority to revoke—Failure to depart upon notice of 

revocation incurs deportability under section 241(a)(2). 

(1) Respondent, admitted in December 1956 as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor and granted an extension of stay on June 19, 1960, to June 11, 1961, 

was informed on August 16. 1960. by the Service, upon latter learning that 

respondent had transferred from one exchange program to another without 

permission and contrary to regulations, that his extension of stay was revoked and that he was being granted until September 20, 1960, in which to 

leave the United States. Although respondent contended that revocation of 

his extension of stay was an arbitrary action which violated procedural 

due process, it was held that the Service has the authority to revoke an 

extension of stay granted without knowledge of the true facts. 

(2) Thus, failure to depart after notice of revocation and a reasonable period to effect his departure renders respondent amenable to deportation 

under section 241(a) (2) of the 1952 Act as having "remained longer than 

permitted." 

(3) By transferring from one exchange program to another without permission from the Service respondent violated the terms of his admission as an 

exchange visitor. Hence, he is also deportable under section 241(a) (9) of 

the 1952 Act for having failed to comply with the conditions of his nonimmigrant status. 

CHARGES : 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (9)]—Failed to 

comply with conditiorit of nonimmigrant status. 

Lodged: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2)1—Nonimmigrant—Remained longer than permitted. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: This case comes forward on appeal from an order 

entered by the special inquiry officer on November 28, 1960, denying 

the respondent's request that the proceedings be terminated and directing that he be deported from the United States pursuant to law 

on the charges designated above. The respondent, a 33-year-old 

single male, native and citizen of Turkey, has resided continuously 

in the United States since his admission at Chicago, Illinois, on or 

239 
about December 28, 1956, as a nonimmigrant exchange visitor authorized to remain in the United States in such status until June 11, 1961. 

Deportation proceedings were instituted against the respondent on 

September 21, 1960, at which time the order to show cause issued on 

the same date was served upon him. During the hearings held in deportation proceedings at Chicago, Illinois, on September 29, and 

October 24, 1960, respectively, an additional charge was lodged 

against the respondent under section 241(a) (2) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, which cites that after admission as a nonimmigrant under section 101(a) (15) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act he remained in the United States for a longer time than permitted. In view of the special inquiry officer's extended treatment of 

the instant case, the Board's discussion will be confined to a statement 

of our reasons for affirming the finding that the respondent is subject to deportation on the charges designated above. 

The facts detailing the respondent's transfer in March 1960, from 

Program P—II-2323 with the Catlett Huntington Hospital, Huntington, West Virginia, to Program P—II-085 at the St. Bernard's Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, without the consent of Cabe11 Huntington 

Hospital and without receiving permission from the United States 

Inamig-ration and Naturalization Service to make such transfer, as 

well as the Office of Cultural Exchange, Department of State, recommending on August 9, 1960, that the respondent's extension of stay 

under the exchange visitor program be denied and he be required to 

.comply with his commitment as an exchange visitor to return abroad, 

have been fully and adequately discussed by the special inquiry officer 

in his decision of November 28, 1960, and need no further discussion herein. The respondent's application to extend the time of his 

temporary stay in the United States was approved by the Service 

on June 19, 1960, at which time his temporary stay was extended 

until June 11, 1961. Thereafter on August 19, 1960, he was informed by the Service that his status as an exchange visitor was 

terminated when he left the Cabe11 Huntington Hospital in March 

1960 and in view thereof the extension of his temporary stay until 

June 11, 1961, was invalid and void, and at the same time he was 

notified that he was granted until September 20, 1960, in which to 

depart voluntarily from the United States. The respondent has remained in the United States without authority since the latter date. 

Counsel by brief on appeal noted that the revocation of the respondent's extension of stay was an arbitrary action and violative 

of procedural due process. It has been held that whatever license 

an alien had either to enter or remain in the United States is revokable at the will of the Government of the United States (Chung 

Tint v. Untied 6'tates. 78 F.2d 4;'), cert. den. 296 U.S. 627; Mahler 

v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32). The extension of temporary admission was re240 
yoked because it was granted without knowledge of the true facts 

and because of this was contrary to the regulations, but at the same 

time the respondent was granted a reasonable time to effect his 

departure from the country. Under these circumstances, the Service 

had the power to terminate the period for which the alien was 

admitted for temporary purposes. It is evident, therefore, that 

the respondent's failure to depart on the date granted to him by 

the Service constitutes a violation of his status and makes him 

deportable. Accordingly, the respondent is subject to deportation 

on the lodged charge designated above. The respondent's transfer 

from Exchange Visitor Program P—II-2323 to Program P—II-985 

without receiving permission from the Service violates his agreement 

to abide by all the terms and conditions of his admission as an exchange visitor. Hence, he, is subject to deportation on the charge 

stated in the order to show cause, in that, he failed to comply with 

the conditions of his exchange visitor status by transferring from 

one program to another without securing permission from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

On the basis of the evidence present in this record, it appears that 

the respondent is statutorily eligible for the discretionary relief 

of voluntary departure and, as a consequence thereof, we have 

concluded to grant counsel's request that the case be remanded to 

the special inquiry officer for the purpose of affording the respondent an opportunity to apply for the discretionary relief of voluntary 

departure, inasmuch as an application therefor was not made during 

the deportation hearing. Accordingly, the following order will be 

entered. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the outstanding order of deportation 

be withdrawn. 

It is further ordered that the case be remanded to the special inquiry officer for the purpose of affording the alien an opportunity to 

apply for and prosecute an application for the discretionary relief 

of voluntary departure and for such further action as may he 

appropriate in the premises. 

241 

.051377 53 17