Interim Decision #2848 

MATTER OF YAZDANI 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-24218212 

Decided by Board February 10, 1981 

(1) Operations Instruction 214.2(0(2) recognizes the District Director's power to reinstate a nonimmigrant's lapsed student status, but does not authorize a nonimmigrant 

student to transfer schools prior to securing Service permission. 

(2) The power to reinstate student status or grant an extension of nonimmigrant stay 

lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Director and neither the immigration judge nor the Board may review the District Director's determination. 

(3) The regulation prohibiting an alien student from transferring schools without 

advance permission from the Service is an essential tool in Service efforts to keep 

track of alien students. 

(4) A. transfer of schools without Service permission, contrary to regulation, is a distinct 

violation of student status in itself which does not permit interpretation or evaluation. 

Magi v. INS, 585 F.2d 1309 (5 Cir. 1978); Matter of Murat-Kahn, 14 I&N Dec. 465 (BIA 

g 1973); and Matter of C—, 9 I&N Dec. 100 (BIA 1960), distinguished. 

(5) A. nonimmigrant student who transfers to a school other than that which she was 

authorized to attend without first securing permission from the Service is in breach of 

the conditions of her status and is thereby deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9), even if she acted in good faith. 

CHARGZ 

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

comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT. Dana. Marks. Keener, Esquire 

Simmons & Ungar 

517 Washington Street, Suite 301 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Br: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members 

In a decision dated May 2, 1980, an immigration judge found the 

respondent deportable under section 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 12&1(a)(9), for failure to comply with the 

conditions of her nonimmigrant student status, but granted her the 

privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. The respondent 

appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed. 

626 
Interim Decision #2848 

The respondent is a 19-year-old native and citizen of Iran who 

entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student bound for a 

course of study at the University of Utah. She was admitted for the 

duration of her student status. Prior to her embarkation for this 

country, the respondent had been accepted for admission by both the 

University of Utah and the University of San Francisco and had 

obtained the requisite Form 1-20, Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant "F-1" Student Status, from each institution. The Form 1-20 

from the University of San Francisco apparently arriyed too late for 

the respondent to secure a visa to attend that school, however, and her 

visa was issued for attendance at the University of Utah. 

The record reflects that upon her arrival in the United States, the 

respondent proceeded to the University of Utah, met with the Director 

of International Student Services there, and obtained that official's 

permission to transfer to the University of San Francisco together 

with his signature on her transfer request, Form 1-528. The Form I-588 

was submitted with the respondent's Form 1-94 and her Form 1-20 

from the University of San Francisco to the Salt Lake City office of the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service' The respondent then enrolled at the University of San Francisco, beginning classes on 

September 24, 1979. 

In December 1979, the respondent reported to the Service's San 

Francisco office pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 214.5. These deportation proceedings were thereafter instituted by the issuance of an Order to Show 

Cause charging the respondent with deportability for having violated 

the conditions of her status by transferring from the school which she 

was authorized to attend to another school without obtaining advance 

permission from the Service. At the deportation hearing that ensued 

on May 2, 1980, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable as charged. The District Director subsequently reviewed the 

respondent's file to determine whether she should be reinstated to 

student status and on October 17, 1980, decided against reinstatement. 

Section 214(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1 184(a), provides in pertinent part: 

The admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such 

time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations 

prescribe ... 

Under the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General, a 

' The 1-538, 1-94 and 1-20 package was transmitted for processing to the Service office 

in Raymond, Montana, which returned the package to the respondent for completion of 

one of the forms. The respondent supplied the additional information and gent the forme 

back to Raymond. The respondent was subsequently informed in response to an inquiry 

regarding the status of her application that the package had been returned to the Salt 

Lake City office. The forms were apparently lost along the way and it appears that the 

respondent's application for permission to transfer was never adjudicated on the merits. 
Interim Decision #2848 

nonimmigrant student must establish as a condition for admission 

that she is destined to and intends to attend the school specified in her 

visa. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(2). She may not transfer to another school unless 

she submits a valid Form 1-20 completed by that school and the Service 

grants her permission to transfer. 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(4). The regulations 

further provide that a nonimmigrant applying for admission must 

agree to abide by all the terms and conditions of her admission. 8 

C.F.R. 214.1(a). 

On appeal, the respondent through counsel argues (1) that advance 

permission to tfaitifer is not required by the regulations, and (2) that 

the respondent. is in any event not deportable because she substantially complied with the terms of her status in making application for a 

transfer. The respondent's arguments must be rejected. 

In support of her first contention, the respondent points to language 

in Service Operations Instruction 214.2(f)(2) which she quotes as 

follows: 

.. if a school transfer has been effected, and the transfer request is submitted to the 

office having jurisdiction over the school to which he has transferred, the receiving 

office may adjudicate the request unless there is good reason not to do so." (Emphasis 

added by the respondent.) 

The respondent maintains that the foregoing Operations Instruction 

casts doubt upon whether it is necessary for a student, in order to 

remain in status, to make application for permission to transfer prior 

to transferring schools. We disagree. 

As previously noted, 'a nonimmigrant student is admitted for the 

purpose of attending a specified school and the regulations expressly 

provide that a student shall not be eligible to transfer to another 

school unless the Service grants her permission to transfer. 8 C.F.R. 

214.2(f). An alien who transfers to a school other than that which she 

was authorized to attend without first securing Service permission is 

in breath of the conditions of her status and is thereby deportable 

under section 241(a)(9). 

There is no qUestion but that the District Director in charge of a 

Service office may through a retroactive grant of a transfer request 

reinstate an alien's student status, and Operations Instruction 

214.2(f)(2) recognizes that power.' The power, however, to reinstate 

student status or grant an extension of nonimmigrant stay lies within 

the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Director and neither the 

immigration judge nor the Board may review the propriety of the 

District Director's determinations. Matter of Teberoz,15 I&N Dec. 689 

The portion of the Operations Instruction quoted by the respondent is jurisdictional, 

concerned solely with designating the Service office which may assume jurisdiction over 

a given application for transfer. 

eno 
Interim Decision #2848 

(BIA 1976); Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 I&N Dec. 191 (BIA 1975), afd, 

520 F.2d 941 (5 Cir. 1975 (tabled case); Matter of Gallares, I&N Dec. 

250 (BIA 1972); Matter of Sourbis, 11 I&N Dec. 335 (MA 1965). In the 

instant ease, the District Director considered and denied 

reinstatement.' 

We find the cases relied upon by the respondent as authority for her 

alternative argument to be inapposite. At issue in Mashi v. INS, 585 

F.2d 1309 (5 Cir. 1978), was the proper interpretation to be given the 

statutory requirement that a nonimigrant student "pursue a full 

course of study" (see 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 

1101(a)(15)(F)(i)) under sup erceded regulations which, unlike the present regulations, set forth no specific objective criteria for compliance 

with that requirement. Noting that the "12 credit" minimum requirement of the present regulations (8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(1a)(ii)) did not apply 

to Mr. Mashi, the court found that he was in fact pursuing a full course 

of study and could not be deported for failure to comply with the 

conditions of his statue simply because his academic load briefly 

dropped below 12 credits in the course of one semester. 

Although the court in Mashi, id., suggested in dictum that the same 

result might be reached on the facts before it under the present 

regulations, there is room for interpretation in determining whether 

the "12 credit" rule of 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(la)(ii) has been satisfied that 

does not exist in determining whether an alien has received permission 

from the Service to transfer as required by 8 C.F.R. 214.2(f)(4). The 

question is whether there has been compliance, not whether there has 

been substantial compliance, with the regulation in question. 

We likewise find the respondent's reliance on the Board's decisions 

in Matter of Murat-Kahn, 14 I&N Dec, 465 (BIA_ 1973), and Matter of 

C—, 9 I&N Dec. 100 (BIA 1960), to be misplaced. We held in those cases 

that a student's conviction which does not interfere with her studies so 

as to meaningfully disrupt her education does not constitute a failure 

to maintain status. The instant case is concerned not with an alleged 

disruption of studies but rather with a separate, distinct violation of 

status, transferring schools without Service permission, a breach 

specifically defined by the regulations. 

Finally, we cannot agree with the respondent's characterization of 

her failure to secure advance permission to transfer as a "minor, 

highly technical" violation of her status. The regulation in question, 8 

' Although the District Director gave no reasons for his denial of reinstatement in this 

case, it is possible that his decision was based upon a determination, which finds some 

support in the record (see Ex. 2, Form I-213), that the respondent never intended to 

attend the school specified on her visa. See Operations Instruction 214.2(f)(2). However, 

we need not speculate as to the District Director's rationale in view of our lack of 

jurisdiction over the question. 
Interim Decision #2848 

C.F.R. 214.2(f)(4), like other regulations governing the activities of 

nonimmigrant students, is an essential tool in the administration of 

our immigration laws. The widespread disregard of those regulations 

which would likely result from lax enforcement thereof would severely 

hamper the Service in fulfilling its responsibilities of keeping track of 

the thousands of alien students within our borders and of enforcing 

the immigration laws with respect to those students. 

We note that the respondent appears to have acted in good faith in 

all of her dealings with the Government. However, so long as the 

enforcement officials of the Service choose to initiate proceedings 

against an alien and to prosecute those proceedings to a conclusion, the 

immigration judge and the Board must order deportation if the 

evidence supports a findingof deportability on the ground charged. Bee 

Lopez-Telles v. INS, 564 F.2d 1302 (9 Cir. 1977); Guan Chow Tok v. INS, 

538 F.2d 36 (2 Cir. 1976); Matter of erced,14 I&N Dec. 644 (BIA 1914). 

The respondent admittedly transferred from the school designated 

on her visa to another school without first receiving permission from 

the Service, an action that constitutes a violation of the conditions of 

her nonimmigrant student status and a ground for deportation under 

section 241(a)(9) of the Act. We find that deportability has been 

established by clear, unecinivocal and convincing evidence on the basis 

of the respondent's concessions. 

The appeal will accordingly be dismissed. In accordance with our 

decision in Matter of Chauliaris, 16 I&N Dec. 168 (BIA 1977), the 

respondent will be granted 15 days within which to voluntarily depart 

the .United States in lieu of deportation. 

ORDER1 The appeal is dismissed. 

FURTHER ORDER, The respondent is permitted to depart from 

the United States voluntarily and without expense to the Government 

within 15 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that 

time as may be granted by the District Director; in the event of failure 

to so depart, the respondent shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

630