Interim Decision #1618 

MATECR or Woo 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-13693799 

Decided by Board July 12,1968 

Respondent, who gained admission to the United States upon the basis of a 

knowing and willful false claim to United States citizenship, has not been 

"Inspected and admitted" within the mooTone of section 245. Immigration 

and Nationality Act, as amended, and, therefore, is statutorily ineligible for 

adjustment of status under that section. [Matter of 2—, 9 L & N. Dec. 599, 

reaffirmed.] 

orazaz: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) ES II.S.O. 1251(a) (1)3—Excludable 

at entry under 8 U.S.C. 212(a) [1948 Ed.I—No immigration visa. 

' This case is before us on appeal from a decision of a. special 

inquiry officer denying the application under section 245 of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, granting voluntary departure 

and directing deportation if the respondent fails to depart voluntarily. 

The respondent is a 35-year-old unmarried male, native and 

citizen of China, who last entered the United States on November 

29, 1949 at which, time he secured entry on the claim that he was 

a United States citizen. Actually, he has never been a citizen and 

he was not in possession of an immigration visa at the time of 

entry. The respondent conceded deportability on the charge stated. 

in the order to show cause. The special inquiry officer denied the 

application for adjustment of status under section 245 on the ground 

that the respondent does not meet the statutory requirement concerning inspection at the time of entry. The sole issue is whether 

the special inquiry officer's action was correct. 

We have carefully considered counsel's contentions in his brief 

on appeal. With respect to the citation of Tibka v. immigration 

and Natvii,allization Service, 335 F.2d 42 (2d Cir., 1964), and Costello 

706 
Interim Decision *1618 

v. konagration and Naturalisation Service, 876 U.S. 120 (1964), 

these cases bear no analogy to that of the respondent,. Although 

the matter is not particularly material, we note that counsel asserts 

that the respondent presented hitncelf to the immigration officers at 

Hong Song whereas the record indicates that he actually appeared 

before immigration officers at San Francisco, California, the United 

States port of entry. 

The important question in this case relates to the language in 

section 245 limiting the adjustment of status to an alien "who was 

inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States". Counsel 

contends that the respondent should be considered as having been 

inspected. We fully considered this question in Matter of B—, 

L & N. Dec. 599 (1962), and concluded that an alien who gained 

admission to the United States by making a knowing and willful 

false claim to citizenship has not been inspected as an alien and is 

not eligible under section 245. As stated in Matter of F—, 9 I. & N. 

Dec. 54, a decision of a Regional Commissioner on September 16, 

1960 citing two unreported decisions of this Board, there is an 

exception tu this rule where the alien did not willfully make . a false 

claim to citizenship and honestly believed that she was a United 

States citizen when she applied for admission. However, the record shows clearly that the respondent is not within• this exception 

and counsel has not contended otherwise. The respondent was over 

18 years of age when he entered the United States on November 29, 

1949. It appears from his application under section 245 and from 

his testimony at the hearing on February 4, 1966 that his true name 

is Gar Hong Woo; that his true father is Chong Lin Woo; that, at 

the time of entry, the respondent stated that his own name was Gar 

Hong Chin; that he then claimed that his father was Gim Seung 

Chin; that the latter was actually his uncle and a United. States 

citizen; and that he used the family name Chin instead of his own 

family name of Woo in order to enter as the son of a citizen. 

Since we are satisfied that the respondent was aware, at the time 

of entry, that he was not a United States citizen and that the false 

claim of citizenship was made knowingly and willfully, we hold that 

his case is governed by our decision in Matter of 8—, supra, and 

that he is not eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, the appeal will 

be dismissed. . • 

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

dismissed. • 

707