Interim Decision #2551 

MATTER OF RO 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-20534965 

A-20515093 

Decided by Board January 25, 1977 

(1) Respondents conceded deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act as nonimmigrants who remained beyond the authorized period of their 

admission. The issue on appeal involves denial of respondents' applications for relief 

under section 245 of the Act. 

(2) Respondents initially submitted applications for immigrant visas to a United States 

Consul in South Korea seeking nonpreference status claiming an exemption from the 

labor certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act on the basis of an investment in a dry-cleaning business and were given a nonpreference priority date of October 17, 1973. The instant applications for adjustment of status, 

however. are based on an investment in a new business. 

(3) Under 8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(2) a nonpreference priority date once established is retained 

by the alien even though at the time a visa number becomes available and he is allotted a 

nonpreference visa number he meets the provisions of section 212(a)(14) of the Act by 

some means other than by which he originally qualified. The respondents may therefore 

claim the priority date of October 17, 1973, even though the investment on which the 

present application are based is different from that which supported their original 

application for visas. 

(4) The record contained evidence that respondents nnrtered the United States with a 

pre conceived intent to remain in that they filed applications for adjustment of status 

only 16 days after their arrival. This adverse factor is not outweighed by the favorable 

factors in this ease and the applications were property denied in the exercise of discretion. 

(5) Matter of Jo, Interim Decision 2412 (BIA 1975) distinguished. 

CHARGE: 

Order. Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) 18 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Nonimmigranteremained longer 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Bert D. Greenberg, Esquire 

8484 Wilshire Boulevard, #730 

Beverly Rills, California 90211 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Torrington, Maniatis, and Appleman, Board Members 

In a decision dated April 1, 1976, the immigration judge found the 

93 
Interim Decision #2551 

respondents deportable as charged, denied their application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, and granted them voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. The 

respondents have appealed from that decision. The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondents, natives and citizens of South Korea, have conceded 

their deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Act as nonin -imigrants 

who remained beyOnd the authorized period of admission. The only 

issues on appeal involve the denial of the respondents' applications for 

section 245 relief. 

The respondents initially submitted their applications for immigrant 

visas to a United States Consulate in South Korea. They sought nonpreference status, claiming an exemption from the labor certification 

requirement of section 212(a)(14) on the basis of an investment in a 

dry-cleaning business. Their applications were accepted, and they were 

given a nonpreference priority date of October 17, 1973.' Their present 

applications for adjustment of status are based upon an investment in a 

new business. 

The immigration judge denied the applications on two grounds: he 

held that (1) immigrant visas are not -immediately available" as required by section 245 and therefore the respondents are statutorily 

ineligible for adjustment of status, and that (2) the respondents do not 

merit a favorable exercise of discretion. The respondents, through 

counsel, contend that their priority date of October 17, 1973, is retained. 

Counsel asserts that the immigration judge erred in holding that the 

respondents were statutorily ineligible for the relief inasmuch as immigrant visas were available at the time . of the immigration judge's decision to those aliens from South Korea with priority dates before January 

1, 1974. The immigration judge, citing our order in Matter of Jo, Interim 

Decision 2412 (BIA 1975), rejected this argument in his decision. 

In Matter of Jo we held that an alien whose application for adjustment 

of status is denied for failure to show an exemption from the labor 

certification requirement of section 212(a)(14) has not established a 

"priority date" within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. 245.2. Consequently, 

when the alien submits another application claiming an exemption from 

labor certification based on a different investment, the earliest "priority 

date" the alien can obtain is.the date on which the new application was 

filed. The alien in that case had not been accorded a priority date by the 

Department of State. 

Our holding in Matter of Jo is inapplicable in the present case. The 

respondents filed their applications for immigrant visas with a consular 

1 It appears as though the consular letter referring to the priority date given to the 

respondents was inadvertently left out of the record. The immigration judge. however. 

refers to the State Department determination in his decision. 

94 
Interim Decision #2551 

official and were given a priority date. 8 C.F.R. 245.1(g)(2) provides 

that a priority date may be fixed by that priority date accorded the 

applicant by the consular officer as a nonpreference immigrant. It 

further provides that, "A nonpreference priority date, once established, 

is retained by the alien even though at the time a visa number becomes 

available and he is allotted a nonpreference visa number he meets the 

provisions of section 212(a)(14) of the Act by some means other than that 

by which he originally established entitlement to the nonpreference 

priority date." Therefore, according to the regulation, the respondents 

may claim the priority date of October 17, 1973, even though they now 

claim to be exempt from section 212(a)(14) on the basis of an investment 

different from that which supported their original applications for immigrant visas. The immigration judge erred in finding them statutorily 

ineligible for failure to establish the availability of immigrant visas as 

required by section 245. 

With respect to the immigration judge's decision to deny the applications as a matter of discretion, we are in agreement. The record contains 

evidence that the respondents entered the United States with a preconceived intent to remain: an application for adjustment of status was filed 

only 16 days after arriving here_ Such evidence adversely affects an 

application for discretionary relief. See Soo Yuen v. INS, 456 F.2d 1107 

(9 Cir. 1972); Ameeriar v. INS, 438 F.2d 1028 (3 Cir. 1971) cert. 

dismissed, 404 U.S. 801 (1971); Chenv. Foley, 385 F.2d 929 (6 Cir. 1967), 

cert. denied, 393 U.S. 838 (1968); Cubillos-Gonzalez v. INS, 352 F.2d 

786 (9 Cir. 1965); Castillo v. INS, 350 F.2d 1 (9 Cir. 1965). We do not 

consider the favorable factors in the case sufficient to outweigh the 

adverse evidence. 

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

FURTHER ORDER: Pursuant to the immigration judge's order, the 

respondents are permitted to depart from the United States voluntarily 

within 30 days from the date of this order or any extension beyond that 

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

failure so to depart, the respondents shall be deported as provided in the 

immigration judge's order. 

95