Interim Decision #1354 

MATTER or ALVAREZ-MCMCA 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-12461600 

Decided by Board Ally 10, 1984 

Since the waiver of permission to reapply granted respondent, a previouslydeported Mexican alien, at the time of his entries as an agricultural laborer In 

1959 and 1959, pursuant to the provisions of 8 CFR 214k1, as amended Nov. 

28, 1957, was limited and did not apply to future entries, particularly not one 

as an immigrant, he required permission to reapply and, therefore, was excludable under section 212(a) (17), Immigration and Nationality Act, at the time 

of his entry for permanent residence on April 29, 1981. (See Matter of 

Villagomav(lasea, bit. Dee. #1276.) 

Qua= : 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 U.S.O. 12511—Excludable by law 

existing at time of entry (sec. 212(a) (17), I. & N. Act; 8 U.S.O. 

1182)—Arrested and deported—No permission to reapply for admission. 

This case is before us on appeal from a special inquiry officer's order 

of March 25, 1964, directing that the respondent be deported from the 

United States to Mexico on the charge contained in the order to show 

cause; denying his application for aunt pro tune permission to reapply 

for admission into the United States after arrest and deportation; and 

finding him ineligible for voluntary departure. The appeal will be 

dismissed. 

The record relates to a 81-year-old married male alien who is a native 

and citizen of Mexico. He originally entered the United States in 

about 1953 without inspection and was deported because of that entry 

on June 13, 1953. He entered the United States as an agricultural contract laborer in 1958, worked for a period of about two months and returned to Mexico; and again entered the United States in 1959 as an 

agricultural laborer under a work contract, remained in the United 

States for a period of three months, and again returned to Mexico. He 

last entered the United States on April 29, 1961, when he was admitted 

for permanent residence upon presentation of a nonquota immigrant 

visa. 

613 
Interim Decision #1354 

The main thrust of respondent's argument on appeal is that he did 

not require permission to reapply at the time of his application for an 

immigrant visa in 1961. He contends that permission to reapply for 

admission had been granted him, a previously deported Mexican alien, 

at the time he was contracted as an agricultural laborer in 1958, or recontracted as such in 1959. He urges that such permission was unlimited and applied to all his future entries no matter what their nature. He seeks support for this theory in a prior precedent decision 

of this Board (Matter of 17—G—, A-13114857, BIA, 4/5/63; Int. 

Dec. No. 1276), wherein we made such a ruling as to an agricultural 

laborer admitted under contract in 1955. 

The basis for our decision in that case was the wording of the then 

controlling regulation (8 CFR 214k.7) 7which read as follows: 

Previous removal, deportation, permission to reapply. An alien who establishes that he is in all respects entitled to admission as an agricultural worker 

under the provisions of this part, except that he has been previously removed at 

Government expense pursuant to section 242(b) of the Act or excluded or arrested and deported solely because of illegal entry or absence of required documents, is hereby granted permission to reapply for admission to the United 

States as an agricultural worker. (17 F.R. 11562, Dec. 19, 1952 amended, 211 

F.R. 5964, Aug. 17, 1955, redesignated 20 P.R. 6380, Aug. 31, 1955.) 

The reason for that decision was that the language of the foregoing 

regulation granted outright permission to reapply rather than a waiver. 

of said ground of inadmissibility. However, we also pointed out in 

that same case (pp. 5 & 6) that on November 28, 1957, the pertinent 

regalation was amended to grant to an agricultural laborer only a 

waiver of the ground of inadmissibility arising out of leek of permission to reapply following deportation. The regulation then read: 

Previous removal, deportation; permission. to reapply. Pursuant to the authority contained in section 212(d) (3) of the Act, the bar to admissibility contained in paragraphs (16) or (17) of section 212(a) of the Act Is hereby waived 

for an alien who establishes that he is otherwise admissible as an agriculturar 

worker under the provisions of this part, except for his previous removal or 

deportation because of entry without inspection or lack of required documents. 

(22 F.R. 9518, Nov. 28, 1957, 8 CPR 214k.7). 

Because of this significant change in the language, we concur in the 

special inquiry officer's conclusion that the waiver of permission to 

reapply for admission granted the respondent at the time of his entriesas an agricultural laborer in 1958 and 1959 was limited and did not - 

apply to future entries, particularly not one as an immigrant. 'Therefore, we agree with said official that the respondent is deportable on• 

the above-stated charge, counsel's contentions to the contrary notwithstanding. 

We also agree with the special inquiry officer that a grant of permission to reapply for admission, wRoto pro bale, would be an idle gesture 

614 
Interim Decision #1354 

since the respondent could be charged with obtaining a visa by fraud 

or misrepresentation under section 212(a) (19) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182). The reason is that he failed 

to disclose in the application for the visa with which he last gained 

entry into the United States in 1961 that he had been previously deported from the United States. His testimony in this respect was: 

"I wanted very much to enter the United States and I was afraid that 

if I told the Consul I was previously deported that he would not let 

me enter." 

We further agree with the special inquiry officer that the respondent 

should not be granted the relief in question because he, a man married 

to a native, citizen and resident of Mexico, with five children enjoying 

the same status, has admitted that he was arrested in August, 1963, 

when he visited a married woman at her home. He stated that he had 

known her for approximately two or three weeks and that he had 

previously had sexual relations with her_ He also stated that her 

husband, who was present -when he arrived, called the police and had 

him arrested (pp. 9 & 10) . This activity, coupled with the visa fraud 

(ante) , militates against favorable exercise of discretionary relief. 

Also, the respondent's admissions concerning his meretricious relationship with a married woman, establishing adultery, preclude him 

from establishing the good moral character requisite to a grant of voluntary departure (section 101(f) (2), I. & N. Act; 8 U.S.C. 1101). 

And even if such conduct did not render the respondent statutorily 

ineligible for the relief of voluntary departure it would, when coupled 

with his concealment of his prior deportation when applying for his 

visa and the fact that he has a wife and five children in Mexico, weigh 

against the grant of such relief as a matter of administrative discretion. 

Accordingly, the special inquiry officer's decision is affirmed. 

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

dismissed. 

615