Interim Decision #2199 

MATTER OF HSU 

In Section 248 Proceedings 

A-19545838 

Decided by Regional Commissioner April 27, 1973 

Application under section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act for a 

change of nonimmigrant classification from visitor for business to that of a 

student is denied for failure of applicant to establish that he is a bona fide 

nonimmigrant where he obtained his visa on the pretext that he was coming 

to this country briefly to conduct business whereas his actual purpose was to 

seek acceptance to a school for the purpose of an extended period of study, 

thereby evading the normal visa-issuing procedures for obtaining a student 

visa. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Elmer Fried, Esquire 

515 Madison Avenue 

New York, New York 10022 

This matter is before the Regional Commissioner on appeal from 

the denial of the application for change of nonimmigrant status. 

The applicant seeks status as a nonimmigrant student in order to 

continue his studies in English and business administration at 

Therese Aub Secretarial School in New York City. 

The applicant is a 26-year-old native and citizen of China who 

was admitted to the United States as a visitor for business on 

August 1, 1972 until October 2, 1972. His stay was limited to two 

months in accordance with the recommendation of the United 

States consular officer who issued the visa. The temporary entry 

permit (Form 1-94) issued to the applicant shows that he assured 

the admitting officer that two months would be adequate for his 

purpose. 

On September 25, 1972 the instant application was filed, supported by a Certificate of Eligibility (Form 1-20) issued by the 

Therese Aub Secretarial School and a bank statement reflecting a 

total of over $5,000 in the applicant's accounts in New York. The 

proposed course of study would require approximately three years 

to complete. 

The District Director denied the application primarily for failure 

344 
Interim Decision #2199 

to establish adequate funds to fully defray all expenses of the 

applicant while studying in this country. 

On appeal and in oral argument counsel has submitted a new 

affidavit from the applicant stating that he is now a full-time 

student at Therese Aub Secretarial School and expects to graduate in November of 1975. He pays $700 per year tuition and now 

has over $8,000 in a bank in New York. He further advises that his 

living expenses, exclusive of his tuition, amount to approximately 

$140 per month and this is broken down by rent, food, transportation, entertainment, and miscellaneous. This amount, together 

with the tuition, totals about $2,400 per year. Thus, on the surface, 

it would appear that he has sufficient funds to defray the cost of 

three years of study in this country. Additionally, he has submitted a letter from his mother in Taiwan, along with English 

translation, declaring that she would assist him financially if 

necessary. There is no evidence to indicate that the mother has 

any funds and could assist the applicant if she wanted to. Counsel 

is aware of this and stated that it is believed that the funds now in 

the bank are sufficient. 

Upon examining the record, we find that the applicant originally 

stated that he would be fully supported in this country by 

"company support and personal saving". He had indicated that he 

was employed by the "Gigantic Company" of Taipai earning $5,000 

per year. He does not state in what capacity he was employed and 

whether he still receives remuneration from the company. Although he asked for and received a visa which would authorize 

him to apply for admission to conduct legitimate business, the 

consular officer obviously had some reservations about his good 

faith as evidenced by the consular notation on the visa that stay 

should be limited to two months for business only. 

The applicant arrived in this country on August 1, 1972 and 

reached New York on August 5, 1972. Just two days later, on 

August 7, 1972, he deposited more than $2,000 in a savings account 

and more than $3,000 in a checking account. The checking account 

is understandable if he is conducting business but it appears 

highly unusual for a businessman who expects to be here only two 

months to open such savings account. This is particularly true of a 

man whose living expenses total only $140 per month. Further, 

there is no evidence that he has actually conducted any business 

here. 

A bank statement shows the average daily balances in his 

savings account as follows: August—$2,234; September—$2,134; 

October—$388.89; November—$5,188.89 and a balance of $8,233.89 

as of December 15, 1972. 

There is no explanation given for the sharp fluctuations in the 

345 
Interim Decision #2199 

bank balances. We are not told for what he is spending and 

receiving several thousands of dollars over a brief period. If he is 

actually engaged in legitimate business transactions permitted 

under his classification as a visitor for business, he has made no 

effort to enlighten us. 

The activities of the applicant support a finding that he was less 

than candid in his dealings with the American consular officer 

who issued his visa and with this Service. It appears that he came 

to this country not to conduct legitimate business for two months 

but to seek acceptance to a school for the purpose of studying for 

an extended period of time. Therefore, it follows that he circumvented the prescribed visa-issuing procedures by securing a 

business visa rather than a student's visa. Perhaps, what the 

applicant has not told us speaks louder than what he has told us. 

In any event, we find that he has not convinced us that he came 

here as a bana fide visitor for business and that he was maintaining such lawful status when he filed the current application. 

Further, the failure to reveal many material details leads to the 

conclusion that the totality of the applicant's good faith is subject 

to doubt and we find that he has failed to establish that he is a 

bona fide nonimmigrant. Accordingly, we find that the denial of 

the application was the proper decision and the appeal will be 

dismissed. 

It is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 

346