Interim Decision #1965 

Mwrrnn or law 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14574024 

Decided by Board April 2,3, 1969 

The special inquiry officer properly concluded that consideration must be 

given an advisory report of the Department of State that a grant of adjustment of status to respondent would have an adverse effect on our relations with respondent's Government and on the international training program in which he was admitted as a participant; that the special inquiry 

officer, upon consideration of all the factors of record, was influenced to 

deny relief, in the exercise of discretion, because of the information in the 

report, does not make the denial improper. Balancing the possible harm to 

the training program, if respondent is granted adjustment of status, with 

the possible hardship to him and his citizen wife, if he is denied such relief, the national interest requires that his application for adjustment of 

status be denied. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9)'" [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (9)3—Nonimgrant—failed to comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status. • 

ON BEAITLF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Jack Wasserman, Esquire Ralph Farb 

Warner Building Appellate Trial Attorney 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

Lloyd A. Tasoff, Esquire 

408 South Spring Street 

Los Angeles, California 90013 

The special inquiry officer found respondent deportable on the 

ground stated in the caption. Voluntary departure was granted. 

Provision was made for respondent's deportation to Switzerland, 

and in the alternative to Formosa, if he failed to depart voluntarily. Respondent's other applications were denied. Appeal is from 

the denials. Deportability is not in issue. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The facts have been stated in great detail in previous orders of 

236 
Interim Decision #1965 

the special inquiry officer and the Board. Briefly, respondent, a 

37-year-old married male, a native and citizen of the Republic of 

China on Formosa was admitted on August 5, 1964 to take part 

in a United States program of military training. When he finished his training, his government ordered him to return to Formosa. He did not comply because he had met a United States citizen with whom he was in love. He married her on April 15, 1965 

and tendered his resignation from military service. Having received no answer, he presumes he is considered a deserter. 

Respondent applied for adjustment of status. The special inquiry officer granted the application. He did not think the record 

was ripe for a decision. He pointed out that he had acted on the 

application only because the parties, particularly the Service, 

pressed for a decision on the basis of the record before him; that 

an unfavorable attitude by the Department of State might make 

denial the more appropriate thing; and that he was acting on a 

record that did not satisfactorily contain the Department's view. 

The Service appealed. It presented a Department of State report showing that the Department believed that a grant of adjustment would harm our relations with respondent's government. The Board reopened the hearing so that the new evidence 

could be made a part of the record. 

Reopened hearing was held on September 9, 1968. The special 

inquiry officer denied respondent's application for adjustment as 

a matter of discretion. He held that the Department of State report (Ex. 11-1) was a factor which had to be considered; that it 

was advisory only; and that, as a matter of discretion, he would 

not grant relief here, even though equities existed on respondent's 

behalf, because of the adverse effect a grant could have on the international training program (pp. 6-8, special inquiry officer's 

opinion, September 9, 1968). 

Counsel contends that the Department of State report was not 

made by the official authorized to make such reports and, therefore, is not entitled to considerable weight. He believeS the special 

inquiry officer gave it controlling weight and that this was error. 

He asks that the Board independently determine the effect a 

grant of permanent residence to respondent would have on foreign relations, that the Board consider the penalty respondent 

may have to pay for deserting and the fact that his wife will not 

be able to get permission to accompany him to Formosa. The appellate trial attorney contends the action of the special inquiry officer was proper. 

We must dismiss counsel's contentions. The special inquiry of287 
Interim Decision #1965 

ficer's opinion capably answers them. The special inquiry officer 

properly held that the report of the Department of State and the 

supporting reason for it must be considered. His opinion clearly 

shows that he did not believe the report prevented. him from exercising his discretion, and that he considered all the factors of 

record, favorable or unfavorable, in reaching his decision. That 

the special inquiry officer was influenced to deny relief because of 

the information in the report, does not make the denial improper. 

The grant of relief is discretionary. Respondent has the burden 

of establishing that relief should be granted. He has not carried 

his burden. The record indicates that a domestic program for 

training foreign armed forces may suffer if participants, from 

whose return the foreign government hopes to benefit, were permitted to remain in the United States. Respondent has presented 

no-evidence that the concern is groundless. The harm the program may suffer is a matter of concern to the agency with a special competence in the matter. The concern is an understandable 

one and must be taken into consideration in passing on the application. Balancing the possible harm to the training program, if 

respondent is granted an adjustment of status, with the possible 

hardship to respondent and to his citizen wife, if he is refused relief, we conclude that the national interest does require that his 

application for adjustment of status be denied. It is a serious 

matter to separate families and we do not do so lightly. We have 

carefully examined the record and all of counsel's contentions. We 

have carefully weighed all the factors which must be taken into 

consideration in deciding the application. Our decision that the 

application should be denied is reluctantly made, but we think it is 

the proper one under the circumstances. It should be clear that 

neither our decision nor the special inquiry officer's was made in 

the belief that the State Department report deprived the Attorney General of freedom of action in deciding the application, 

Cheng Fu Sheng v. I.N.S., 400 F.2d 678 (9 Cir., 1968). See Secretary of Defense v. Le Khac. Bong, Civil #21,819 (D.C. Cir., 

March 8, 1969); Hosseinmardi v. I.N.S., 405 F.2d 25 (9 Cir., 

1969); Matter of Yousef, 11 I. & N. Dec. 163 (BIA, 1965) . 

Counsel contends that if respondent is -returned to Formosa, he 

will face persecution of the nature which would bring him within 

the provisions of section 243(h) of the Act. The lucid and detailed presentation by the special inquiry officer satisfactorily 

deals with the issue (pp. 8-11, special inquiry officer's opinion, 

September 9, 1968). . The special inquiry officer has properly 

found that respondent has failed to establish he would be faced 

238. 
Interim Decision #1965 

with more than a court martial and a possible prison sentence for 

his desertion. The special inquiry officer properly found that such 

a result is not the persecution with which section 243 (h) is concerned, Cheng Fu Sheng v. I.N.S., supra; uupieich v. Esperdy, 

319 F.2d 773 (2 Cir., 1963), cert. denied 376 U.S. 933; Chao—

Ling Wang v. PiMod, 285 F.2d 517, 520 (7 Cir., 1960) ; Matter of 

Liao, 11 I. & N. Dec. 113. 

We have considered the citation of authority presented on respondent's behalf but do not find them apposite. 

Respondent is being permitted to depart voluntarily to any 

country of his choice instead of being returned to the Republic of 

China. This grant of voluntary departure, although undoubtedly 

unsatisfactory to all the parties concerned, appears to be justified 

in view of respondent's claim that his wife will not go to Formosa with him. 

ORDER; It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is 

hereby dismissed. 

It is further ordered that, pursuant to the special inquiry 

officer's order, the respondent be permitted to depart from the 

United States voluntarily within 30 days from the date of this decision or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by 

the District Director; and that, in the event of failure so to depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the special 

inquiry officer's order. 

239