Interim Decision #2897 

-MATTER OF HALL 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-22103%3 

Decided by Board February 4, 1982 

(1)"The respondent, who engages in fund-raising activities as part of his missionary work 

for the Unification Church, is employed within the contemplation of section 245(c)(2) of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2), and, therefore, his employment without the permission of the Inunigration and Naturalization Service bars him 

from adjusting his status in the United States to that of a lawful permanent resident 

(2) Where the respondent receives MR support in return for his.inissionary duties, he 

is not an unpaid volunteer in the service of the Church even though he receives no fixed 

salary or remuneration in an amount propOrtional to his success in his work 

(3) In the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent, the Board will not conclude that detriment to the American labor force was Congress' sole or even primary 

concern in enacting section 245(c)(2) of the Act: however. where the respondent's activities as a fund-raiser could successfully be performed by persons or business enterprises 

outside the Church and involve the sale of goods, an entrepreneurial undertaking which 

places the Church in competition with other sellers of such goods, it nay not be said that 

those activities are without adverse impact on the United States labor market. 

(4) In considering the applicability of section Z45(c)(2) of the Act, the Government does 

not improperly dictate to the Unification Church the permissible scope of its missionaries' duties by isolating the respondent's fund-raising activities from his purely 

ministerial duties; determining the status or duties of an individual within a religious 

organization is a distinct question from determining whether that individual qualifies 

for status or benefits under our immigration laws and authority over the latter determination lies not with any ecclesiastical body but with the secular authorities of the United 

States. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 200(2) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)] –Nonimmigrant—remained

longer than permitted 

ON BEHALF.OP RESPONDENT: ON RENALPOPSERVICE! 

David Carliner, Esquire Gerald S. Hdrwitz 

#931 Investment Building Appellate Trial Attorney 

1511 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

By: Milhollan, Chairman; Menials, Maguire, Morris, 'and Vacca, Board Members 

At a deportation hearing conducted on December 19, .1978, an immigration judge found the respondent deportable as an overstayed nonim203 
Interim Decision #2897 

migrant pursuant to section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2), and statutorily ineligible for adjustment of 

status under section 245 of the Act, 8 U.S. C. 1255, by reason of the 

unauthorized employment bar of section 245(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2), 

but granted him the privilege of voluntary departure in lieu of deportation. The respondent concedes deportability but contests the denial of 

section 245 relief. 

At the conclusion of the deportation hearing, as the immigration judge 

was stating his decision, the respondent through counsel made an oral 

motion to reopen the proceedings to permit further development of the 

record with respect to his eligibility for adjustment of stains. The immigration judge declared the hearing closed .and refused to entertain the 

respondent's motion to reopen: 1Subsequent to the hearing, on December 26, 1978, the respondent submitted a formal, written motion to 

reopen which the immigration judge denied in a decision dated February 14, 1979. The respondent -appealed from that decision and oral argument in the case was heard by the Board on May 1, 1980. 

In seeking to reopen deportation proceedings, it is incumbent upon 

the alien to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for the relief sought. 

Matter of Rodriguez, 17 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA 1979). The respondent has 

not sustained his burden. Upon careful consideration of the arguments 

advanced by the respondent since the hearing, we are satisfied that 

section 245(c)(2) operates to bar adjustment in his case. As no purpose 

would be served by reopening, the respondent's appeal from the denial 

of his motion to reopen will be dismissed. 

The record reflects that the respondent, a 36-year-old single male, a 

native and citizen of Guyana, entered the United States at New York in 

May 1976 upon presentation of a nonimmigrant visitor visa. He came to 

the United States for the purpose of attending a rally sponsored by the 

Unification Church at Yankee Stadium. In July 1976, the respondent 

departed New York for Puerto Rico to "work . . . as a missionary" for 

the Unification Church (Tr. p. 9),a pursuit in which he is apparently still 

engaged. 

According to the respondent, his duties as a missionary consist of 

holding and attending seminars, witnessing, visiting houses and teaching people on the street the word of God, distributing literature, helping 

' Prior to the deportation hearing, the District Director had denied the respondent's 

application for adjustment of status on a ground other than that cited by the immigration 

judge, i.e., section 212(a)(15) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(15). The respondent contends 

that the Service did,not raise the unauthorized employment bar of section 245(c)(2) as a 

possible basis for denial when he renewed his application at the hearing and that he was 

therefore denied an opportunity to show that the bar did not apply in ilia case. Despite this 

objection, the immigration judge ruled that the respondent had had adequate opportunity 

to demonstrate eligibility for the relief sought. 

204 
• Interim Decision #2897 

people financially under Church auspices, and visiting churches. Those 

duties also include selling toys, jewelry and trinkets as a means of 

raising funds for the Church. The respondent, estimates that he spends 

from one-third to one-half of his time fund-raising. 

The respondent testified that the proceeds of his fund-raising efforts 

are turned over to the Director of the Church in Puerto Rico with whom 

he shares a rented house. In return, the respondent receives full support from the Church which includes housing, food, clothing, medical 

expenses, transportation, entertainment, toiletries, and other personal 

expenses. In addition, the respondent is given approximately $25 in 

cash each month for "walking around" money, enough to ensure that he 

has -$10 in pocket money at all times. 

The unauthorized employment bar of section 245(c)(2), added by the 

1976 Amendments to the Act, 2renders ineligible for adjustment of status aliens (other than immediate relatives) who, after the effective date 

of the bar, continued in or accepted authorized employment prior to 

filing an adjustment application_ The respondent continued his activities 

on behalf of the Unification Church, which he does not contend were 

authorized by the Service, after the Jaimary 1, 1977, effective date of 

the bar. His adjustment application, based upon his status as th•beneficiary of an approved second-preference visa petition Submitted by his 

lawful permanent resident mother, was not filed until May 1977. The 

dispositive question, then, is whether those activities constitute "em 7 

 ployment" within the contemplation of section 245(e)(2). The immigration judge answered that question in the affirmative, concluding that 

the respondent was employed as a fund-raiser for the Church. 

The respondent contends that the activities in question may not properly be characterized as employment so as to bar him from the benefits 

of section 245. He describes his position with the Church as an unpaid 

volunteer, not an employee, arguing that he labors for no salary. He 

' submits that his service as a missionary is not the type of pursuit Congress contemplated in enacting section 245(c)(2). Finally, the respondent argues that his fund-raising efforts and his teaching, proselytizing, 

and other religious duties are integral, indivisible parts of his missionary work and that it is not within the province of the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service or the immigration judge to determine what constitutes missionary work for any. particular chureh. 

The respondent's contention that he is an unpaid volunteer in the . 

service of the Church is not persuasive. He clearly receives compensation in return for his efforts on behalf of the Church. By his own account, 

he is provided the wherewithal to cover both necessary and nonessential 

21976 Amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub. L. 94-571, 90 Stet. 

2703 (effective January 1, 1977). 

205 
Interim Decision #2897 

expenses, such as entertainment and recreation. He is, in addition, 

given discretionary funds as needed: The respondent's relationship with 

the Church in effect guarantees him a standard of living similar to that 

of many moderate-income wage earners. The fact that he receives no 

fixed salary or remuneration in an amount proportional to his success as 

a fund-raiser is, in our view, immaterial. 

The respondent insists that his work on behalf of the Unification 

Church is not the sort of undertaking Congress intended to discourage 

with the imposition of the unauthorized employment bar inasmuch as his 

activities have no adverse impact on the -United States labor force. As 

the respondent acknowledges, however, the legislative history of sec-

• tion 245(c)(2) provides little guidance as to the specific end or ends 

sought to be served by the bar. Congress' sole statement of purpose, 

contained in the House Judiciary Committee report to the 1976 Amendinents,3reads as follows: 

. . . [under the proposed legislation,] aliens who are not defined as immediate relatives 

and who accept unauthorized employment prior to filing their adjustment application 

would be ineligible for adjustment of status. The Committee believes that this prevision 

would deter many nonimmigrants from violating the conditions of their admission by 

obtaining unauthorized employment. Similar provisions were included in legislation 

which passed by the House of Representatives during the 92d and 93rd Congresses. 

(Emphasis added.) 

Concern over the impact of a nonimmigrant's unauthorized employment upon the American labor force may well have been a motivating 

factor underlying the enactment of section 245(c)(2). However, Congress did not so indicate, either indirectly in the legislative history of 

the proposal ultimately enacted or directly in the express language of 

the statute. 4Absent a clear expression of legislative intent, we are 

unwilling to conclude that detriment to American labor was Congress' 

sole or; for that matter, primary concern.. 

Manifest in the report language quoted above is-Congress' substantial 

interest apart from its arguable interest in protecting the domestic 

,labor market — in the enforcement of our immigration laws with respect 

to nonimmigrant aliens within our borders. Cf. Matter of Yazdani, 

17 •I&N Dec. 626 (BIA 1981). 5Correlatively, by penalizing nonimmiH.R. Rep. No. 94-1553, 94th Cong. 2d Sess. (September 15, 1976), reprinted in 1976 

U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 6073, 6084. 

4Congiess could have, but did not, exempt from the bar nonimmigrants engaged in 

employment determined to be of benefit to the United States. Cf. Matter of Raot, 16 l&N 

Dee. 466 (BIA 1978). Our reluctance to read a limitation into the statute not placed there 

by Congress is bolstered by the fact that-an alien within the ambit of section 245(c)(2) is 

deprived of no ultimate right under the immigration Jaws since he remains free to apply to 

a United States-consul abroad for an immigrant visa. 

Pursuant to those immigration laws, a nonimmigrant is forbidden to work in this 

country unless he has been accorded a nonimmigrant classification which authorizes employ204 
Interim Decision #2897 

grants who work in violation of the terms of their admission, Congress 

may well have sought to discourage aliens admitted to the United States 

for a temporary purpose from acquiring a source of funds to support a 

prolonged unlawful stay in this country. 

In any event, we are not persuaded that the respondent's activities as 

a fund-raiser are without adverse impact on the United States labor , 

market. Unlike the purely ministerial duties carried on by the respon-. - 

dent, we consider the raising of funds a secular function which could 

successfully be performed by persons or business enterprises outside 

the Church. We note, moreover, that the respondent does not merely 

solicit donations in the name of the Unification Church but engageS in 

the sale of goods, an entrepreneurial undertaking which places the Church 

in competition with other sellers of such goods. 

Under the circumstances here presented, were the institution or 

organization for which the respondent performs his fund-raising services not a church, we would have no difficulty in finding the' section 

245(c)(2) bar applicable. We find no basis in the language or history of 

the statute for carving out an exception to the bar in the case of a 

church, at least with respect to the secular activities of its adherents. 

We reject the respondent's suggestion that the Government, by isolating his fund-raising activities, improperly seeks to dictate to the Unification Church the permissible scope of its missionaries' duties. Determining the status or the duties of an individual within a religious organization 

is one thing; determining whether that individual qualifies for status or 

benefits under our immigration laws is another. Authority over the 

latter determination lies not with the Unification Church or any other 

ecclesiastical body but with the secular authorities of the United States. 

See Matter of Rhee, 16 I&N Dec. 607 (BIA 1978). 

In stun, we conclude• that the respondent, through his fundraising 

activities, engaged in employment without Service permission in contravention of section 245(c)(2) and consequently is not eligible to adjust his 

status in this country to that of a lawful permanent resident. His motion 

to reopen the proceedings to permit consideration of his application for 

adjustment of status under section 245 was, therefore, properly denied. 

The appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

meat or has'been granted specific work autluirization from the Service; a nonimmigrant 

who is permitted to work may engage only in such employment as , has been authorized. 8 

C.F.R. 214.1(e); 8 C.F.R.109.1(a). 

207