• Interim Decision #2924 

MATTER OF BROWN 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-30085015 

Decided by Board September 30, 1982 

(1) Deportation proceedings which have been commenced against an alien are not nullified 

by his temporary absence from the United States as long as the allegations and charges 

stated in the Order to Show Cause continue to be. applicable. 

(2) The Immigration and Naturalization Service need not issue a new Order to Show Cause 

when an alien under deportation proceedings departs from the country if upon his return 

he is still deportable on the same grounds stated in the Order to Show Cause. 

(3) A lawful permanent resident who has applied in deportation proceedings for a waiver 

of deportability under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 

•182(c), and subsequently departs from the United States may resume the application 

in those proceedings upon his return. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11))—Convicted of a narcotics violation 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Joseph F. O'Neil, Esquire Frederick J. McGrath 

116 Lincoln Street General Attorney 

Boston, Massachusetts 02111 

Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Dunne, Morris, and Vacca, Board Members 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service has appealed from a decision of the immigration judge dated May 5, 1982, terminating deportation proceedings. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be 

remanded for further proceedings. 

The respondent is a 25-year-old native and citizen of Jamaica who was 

admitted to the United States on May 27, 1973, as a lawful permanent 

resident. Thesecord reflects that he was convicted on June 3, 1980, in 

the District Court of Springfield, in Springfield, Massachusetts, for 

possession of marijuana. 

On August 28, 1980, an Order to Show Cause was issued charging the 

respondent with deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11), for having been convicted of a narcotics violation. At deportation proceedings conducted on 

224 
Interim Decision #2924 

May 11, 1981, the respondent conceded deportability and applied for a 

waiver of deportation pursuant to section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1182(c). TLe hearing was continued for an investigation regarding that 

application 

At resumed proceedings on May 5, 1982, the respondent testified that 

he had departed from the Unit ul States on August 19, 1981, for a visit 

to Jamaica. The immigration judge terminated deportation proceedings, 

concluding that the Service was required to institute new proceedings 

as a result of the respondent's departure from the United States. He 

further stated that by leaving.the country the respondent abandoned his 

applicatiom for section 212(c) relief. 

We find that the immigration judge erred in terminating the proceedings in this case. Deportation proceedings previously commenced against 

an alien are not nullified by his temporary absence from the United 

States. The reason for issuance of an Order to Show Cause is to inform 

an alien of the deportation charges against him and to notify hiln that he 

must show why he should not be deported. See 8 C.F.R. 242.1(b). As 

long as the allegations and charges stated in the Order to Show Cause 

continue to be applicable, the alien remains subject to deportation. He 

cannot compel the termination of deportation proceedings which have 

been commenced against him merely by effecting a departure and 

reentry. Consequently, we do not find it mandatory that the Service 

issue a new Order to Show Cause when an alien departs from the country if upon his return he is still deportable on the same grounds stated 

in the Order to Show Cause. This ruling does not, however, preclude 

the Service from electing to issue a new Order to Show Cause when 

appropriate. • 

Furthermore, we conclude that the respondent's application for section 212(e), relief could properly be resumed upon his return to the 

United States. See Matter of Lok, 18 I&N Dec. 101 (BIA 1981). Requirr 

 ing him to file another application would serve no useful purpose in thih 

case. Accordingly, the record will be remanded to the immigration judge 

for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the 

entry of a new decision. 

ORDER The record is remanded to the immigration judge for 

further proceedings. 

325