MATTER OF P N 

In EXCLUSION Proceedings 

A-6245275 

Decided by Board October 7, 1959 

17 ,vocation of visa—Not invalidated by lack of notice to alien or failure to effect 

physical cancellation—Evidence----State Department certification admissible. 

(1) Revocation of visa by Secretary of State under authority of section 221(1) 

of the 1952 act, timely notice of which is communicated to the Attorney 

General, is not inralirlited by lack of notice to alien or failure to effect 

physical cancellation of the visa prior to his arrival in the United States. 

(2) Certification by Department of State attesting to revocation of nonimmigrant visa prior to alien's app)Motion for admission to United States, despite objections as hearsay, is ach 'ssible in evidence in immigration pro-

' ceedings. 

EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Section 212 (a ) (26 ) t8 U.S.C. 118`... (a ) (26) 1—Nonimmigrant, no valid nonimmigrant visa. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

Discussion: The case comes forward on appeal from the order 

of the special inquiry officer dated May 27, 1959, finding the applicant inadmissible on the ground stated above and directing that he 

be excluded and deported from the United States. 

The facts of the case are fully set forth in the decision of the 

special inquiry officer. The record relates to a native and citizer 

of Cuba, 41 years old, male, who arrived at the port of Miami 

Florida, on .January 24, 1959, and applied for admission to th, 

United States as a temporary visitor for pleasure under the provi 

sions of section 101(a) (15) (B) of the Immigration and Nationalit 

Act of 1052. He presented a valid Cuban passport which containe 

a nonimmigrant visa stamp (classification B-2) showing that 

nonimmigrant visa was issued to him by an American Vice Cons, 

at Havana, Cuba, on October 4, 1957, valid for multiple applicatiu 

for admission for 4 years from date. The applicant had been prel 

ously admitted to the United States on August 6, 1946, for perm 

nent residence but renounced his residence in the United Stal 

about 1950 in a letter addressed to the Consul of the United Sta 

at Havana. He makes no claim of being a permanent resident I 

seeks admission solely as a nonimmigrant temporary visitor. 

456 
The record contains a document by the Acting Secretary of State 

authenticating a certification by the Deputy Director, Visa Office, 

Department of State, Washington, D.C., to the effect that on January 21, 1959, the American Consul at Kingston, Jamaica, British 

West Indies, was notified by telephone that the nonimmigrant visa 

previously issued to the appellant on October 4, 1957, by the American Consul at Havana, Cuba, had been invalidated by the Department of State in Washington, D.C., in accordance with the authority 

contained in section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

It is further set forth that the said American Consul was directed 

to notify the appellant of the visa invalidation and, in addition, 

to notify appropriate transportation lines of the invalidation of the 

said visa, and further, to pursue such steps as necessary to effect 

physical cancellation of the visa. It was also indicated that notice 

of the visa invalidation was communicated to the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service of the Department of Justice. The communication enntaing informatinn that the American Embassy at Ciudad 

Trujillo had notified the applicant telephonically that his visa was 

invalidated. 

The appellant has denied that he received any notification of the 

invalidation of his nonimmigrant visa and it is conceded that there 

was no physical cancellation of the visa on January 24, 1959, at the 

time he applied for admission. The visa now bears a handwritten 

notice of cancellation placed thereon on January 25, 1959, by an 

immigration officer at San Juan, Puerto Rico. After being informed 

on January 24, 1959, that his nonimmigrant visa had been invalidated by the Department of State, the appellant elected to withdraw his application for admission and to return to the Dominican 

Republic. He returned by way of San Juan, Puerto Rico, where 

the cancellation stamp was placed -upon his visa by the aforementioned immigration officer. Subsequently he instituted a civil action 

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida and the court directed that the applicant be returned to the 

United States for the purpose of testifying in the immigration adm inistrative proceedings to determine his admissibility. His return 

to the United States on March 1, 1959, was pursuant to such court 

order. 

The main point at issue is whether the nonimmigrant visa wa& 

properly invalidated before the appellant applied for admission to 

the -United States on January 24, 1959. There is, of course, no 

doubt that subsequent thereto, to wit, on January 25, 1959, the visa 

was physically cancelled and the appellant had notice of such 

physical cancellation. It is also apparent from the testimony of 

record that the appellant's visa was not physically cancelled upon 

the date of his application for admission on January 24, 1959. 

457 
There is conflicting evidence as to whether he waz aware that it had 

been invalidated by the Department of State prior to such date. 

The applicant for admission has the burden of establishing his 

eligibility for admission to the United States under the immigration 

laws. The appellant has done so by submitting the required documents and no qualitative grounds of inadmissibility have been 

urged. However, the record does contain the certification from the 

Department of State which establishes that the nonimmigrant visa 

had been invalidated prior to the appellant's application for admission to the United States by the Department of State at Washington, D.C. This document, despite objections as hearsay, is admissible as a properly authenticated copy by an official of the Depart- 

,nt of State which must be accorded a presumption of regularity. 

In addition, this communication, as well as the communications 

from the Service, meets the test of admissibility in immigration 

proceedings, namely, that it is probative evidence of the fact of 

invalidation of the nc-Prrunigrant vim prior to the date of appellant's application for admission. 

The communication front the Department of State sets forth that 

revocation was pursuant to section 221(i) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. This subparagraph (i) provides that after issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien the consular 

officer or the Secretary of State may at any tiniL, in his discretion, 

revoke such visa or other documentation; and further provides that 

notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney 

General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance. It is to be noted that this 

subparagraph contains no provision for notification to the alien of 

the invalidation or revocation of the visa. 

However, counsel contends that the revocation is not valid because 

it was not done pursuant to the State Department regulations 

22 CFR 41.18, which deal with revocation and invalidation of non 

immigrant visas and other nonimmigrant documentation. It i 

believed, however, that the provisions of 22 CFR 41.18 are nc 

applicable to the instant case. Section 221(i) provides that aft€ 

issuance of the visa the consular officer or the Secretary of Stagy 

may at any time in his discretion revoke such visa and provides f( 

notice to the Attorney General and that such revocation shall i 

validate the visa from the date of issuance. 

The regulations referred to by counsel, 22 CFR 4-1.18, deal wi 

revocation and invalidation by a consular officer. It is noted tl 

the proviso to subparagraph (d) of 22 CFR 41.18 states that t 

consular office which issued the visa shall be notified of the rev& 

tion or the invalidation if such action was effected by any otl 

consular office or by the Department of State. 

458 
It, therefore, appears that by statute and by regulation authority 

is granted to the Department of State, as well as to consular officers, 

to invalidate or revoke a visa prior to the arrival of the alien in 

the United States. The regulations cited, 22 CFR 41.18, provide 

the procedure for consular revocation, but even those regulations 

provide in subparagraph (c) that notification and opportunity to 

show cause why the visa should not be revoked shall be given, if 

practicable. The failure to accomplish a physical revocation of the 

visa does not affect the validity of any action taken to revoke or 

invalidate a visa or other documentation (22 CFR 41.18(c)). 

In summary, we conclude that the record establishes that the 

nonimmigrant visa in possession of the applicant was in fact invalidated before he arrived in the United States. There is no 

requirement in the law that the applicant need be notified of such 

revocation or be given a hearing where the Department revokes a 

visa, and even the regulations governing consular revocation merely 

provide that notice and opportunity to he heard shall be given only 

if practicable. It, therefore, appears that Congress has seen fit not 

to provide for a hearing procedure in cases of invalidation of nonimmigrant visas and has empowered the Secretary of State to revoke 

in his discretion. The invalidation was, pursuant to the statute, 

communicated to the Attorney General through his duly designated 

representative. It is concluded that the evidence establishes that 

the invalidation was effective prior to the arrival of the alien in 

the United States and that he was not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa at the time he applied for admission. The appeal 

will be dismissed. Compliance with the order of the court regarding 

the alien's departure from the United States is the concern of the 

Service. 

Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

459