Interim Decision #2218 

MATTER OF ZAPPA 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-17085834 

Decided by Board August 16, 1973 

The immigration judge, whose decision in the instant exclusion proceeding was 

rendered on November 21, 1972, lacked jurisdiction to consider applicant's 

application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, as amended, notwithstanding the annually revised editions of 

Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations from January 1971 to January 1973, 

inclusive, inadvertently omitted in 8 CFR 245.2(aX1) language expressly 

barring immigration judges from considering section 245 applications for 

adjustment of status in exclusion proceedings. 

EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Section 212(aX20) [8 U.S.C. 1192(0-X20)] No immigrant visa. 

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 

Joseph A. Gatti), Esquire 

3280 Penobscot Building 

Detroit, Michigan 48226 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Paul C. Vincent 

Appellate Trial Attorney 

This is an appeal from a decision of an immigration judge, dated 

November 21, 1972, which found the applicant excludable from the 

United States under section 212(aX20) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act. The immigration judge further determined that 

he did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant's application 

for adjustment of status since the District Director has exclusive 

jurisdiction to consider applications for section 245 relief except in 

deportation proceedings. We shall dismiss the appeal. 

The applicant is a 45 year-old male alien who is a native and 

citizen of Italy. He first entered the United States on or about 

August 1, 1966 as a visitor for pleasure. He was subsequently 

accorded status under the fifth and the sixth preference portions 

of the quota allocations as set out in section 203 of the Act. 

On December 21, 1971, the applicant applied for, and was 

granted, authorization for advance parole into the United States 

so that he could visit relatives in Italy. On January 20, 1972, he 

returned to this country and was paroled into the United States 

405 
Interim Decision #2218 

for an indefinite period. Approximately one month later, he applied for status as a permanent resident. In a decision dated June 

13, 1972, a District Director denied the application for section 245 

relief and revoked the applicant's parole. 

At applicant's exclusion hearing, he attempted to renew his 

application for section 245 relief. The immigration judge refused to 

consider the application and the applicant appealed to this Board 

from that decision. The appeal is based solely on the applicant's 

contention that an immigration judge hag jurisdiction in an 

exclusion proceeding to grant relief under section 245 of the Act. 

The applicant based this assertion on a purported amendment to 8 

CFR 245.2(a)(1) which appeared in the 1971 and succeeding issues 

of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This publication 

erroneously incorporated into 8 CFR 245.2(aX1) an amendment to 8 

CFR 2452(bX1), as promulgated in 35 FR 18582 (December 8, 1970). 

This error was subsequently corrected in 38 FR 11340 (May 7, 

1973), as follows: 

CFR Correction 

In § 245.2 appearing on page 108 of title 8 revised as of January 1, 1973, an 

amendment to paragraph (b)(1), published at 35 Fit 18582, December 8, 1970, 

was inadvertently incorporated into paragraph (aX1). 

Paragraph (a)(1) of § 245.2 should read as follows: 

§ 245.2 Application. 

(a) General.—(1) Jurisdiction.—An application for adjustment of status 

under section 245 of the act or section 1 of the act of November 2, 1966, by an 

alien after he has been served with -an order to show cause or warrant of 

arrest shall be made and considered only in proceedings under part 242 of this 

chapter. In any other case, an alien who believes that he meets the eligibility 

requirements of section 245 of the act or section 1 of the act of November 2, 

1966, and § 245.1, shall apply to the district director having jurisdiction over 

his place of residence. 

We conclude that the entire basis for the appeal was predicated on 

a purported change in 8 CFR 245.2(a) which actually never 

occurred. 

In Matter of Wong, 12 I. & N. Dec 407 (B IA, 1967), we analyzed 8 

CFR 245.2(aX1) and held that it refers only to expulsion proceedings. We concluded that 8 CFR 245.2(a) clearly specifies that the 

District. Director has exclusive jurisdiction to consider an application for adjustment of status except in proceedings pursuant to 

section 242 of the Act after an order to show cause or a warrant of 

arrest has been served. 

In the present case, no order to show cause or warrant of arrest 

has been served. Further, the proceedings were conducted pursuant to section 236 and not pursuant to section 242. Therefore, it 

is evident that the immigration judge did not have jurisdiction to 

406 
Interim Decision #2218 

consider the applicant's application for relief under section 245 of 

the Act. 

Since the applicant's parole was revoked by the District Director 

on June 13, 1972 and he is not in possession of a valid unexpired 

immigrant visa, re-entry permit, border crossing identification 

card, or other valid entry document required by the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, we conclude that the applicant is excludable 

from admission into the United States under section 212(aX20) of 

the Act. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

407