Interim Decision #1885 

MATTER 011' ANUNCIAOION 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-14438768 

Decided by Board July 25, 1968 

(1) A special inquiry officer, prior to designation of a country of deportation in 

accordance with section 243(a) of the Immigration and wattonant7 Act, is 

not required to make inquiry of such country as to its 'willingness to accept the 

alien into its territory. • 

(2) A special inquiry officer is not required to designate an alternate country of 

deportation under section 243(a) of the Act; such officer has the discretion to 

specify countries of deportation in the singular or plural (8 OFR 24217(e) ). 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241 (a) (2) [8. 11.S.C. 12513—Nonimmigrant 

(exchange visitor)—remained longer. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON Beams,or Brawn= : 

Irving I, Freedman, Esquire Robert A. Vielhaber 

134 North La Salle Street Appellate Trial Attorney 

Chicago, Illinois 60802 

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

of February 19, 1968, granting the respondent the privilege of voluntary departure, but providing deportation from the United States to 

the Republic of the Philippines, on the charge contained in the order 

to show cause, in the event of here failure to so depart. The appeal will 

be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 24-year-old single female. She admitted, 

through her attorney, that she is an alien, a native and citizen of the 

Philippines, who entered the United States at Honolulu, Hawaii on 

January 30, 1965, at which time she was admitted as an exchange visitor. She also admitted that she was authorized to remain in the United 

States until November 25, 1967 and that she has remained beyond 

that date. She declined, however, to admit &portability on the 

charge contained in the order to show cause. 

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 were incorporated in the record over objection . 

 by counsel. After stating that her name is Emerenciana G. Anuncia-* 

815 
Interim Decision #1888. 

don, the respondent, -upon the advice of her attorney, declined to 

answer any questions relating to these documents. But she did not 

deny that they related to her, and no evidence was presented to show 

that they did not pertain to her. 

Exhibit 2 is a Form DSP-66, Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status,.hich states that the Albert Einstein Medical 

Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has selected the exchange visitor, 

Emerenciana Guillen AnUnciacion, a native and citizen of the Philippines, to participate in its Exchange Visitor Program Number P-II616. Exhibit 2 is also endorsed to show that the person named therein 

was admitted to the United States at Honolulu, Hawaii on January 30, 

1965 as Class J-1 (exchange visitor) until January 29, 1966. 

Exhibit. 3 is a.Forin 1-94, A.rrival:Departure Record, showing that 

Emerenciana Anunciacion, a -native and citizen of the Philippines, 

was admitted to -the United States at Honolulu, Hawaii on January 30, 

1965 as Class J-1 until January 29, 1966, destined to the Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The reverse of 

Exhibit 3 shows that Emerenciana Aminciacion was granted an extension of temporary stay to December 31,1'966. 

Exhibit 4 is a Certificate of Eligibility for Exchange Visitor Status 

which certifies that the- St. Francis Hospital, Evanston, Illinios, as 

sponsor, has selected Emerenciana Anunciacion to participate in its 

Exchange Visitors Program Number P-II-471 and that the responsible officer of- the Exchange Visitor Program Number P-II-616 at 

Albert Einstein Medical Center certified that he is of the opinion that 

the transfer of the above-named exchange visitor to Exchange Visitor 

Program Number P-31-471 is necessary or desirable in view of the 

purpose for which she was admitted to the United States. Exhibit 4 

also bears an endorsement showing that the transfer and extension of 

stay of Emerenciana Anunciacion were approved by the District Director, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 bear the same name as that of the respondent 

and corroborate her pleading to the allegations in the order to show 

cause. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is concluded 

that these documents relate to the respondent. Based upon the respondent's pleading and the documentary evidence aforesaid, it is concluded that the respondent's deportability on the charge contained 

in the order to show cause has been established by evidence which is 

clear, unequivocal and convincing. All we can add, in this connection, 

is that the issue of deportability has not been raised on appeal. 

The special inquiry officer has granted the respondent the privilege 

of voluntary departure, which was the only relief requested of him. 

Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the record before us supports 

his action in this respect. 

816 
Interim Decision #1888 

The respondent, was given an opportunity to designate the country 

of deportation, in the event s,ueh action .was required, and she declined 

to do so. The specialinquiry .officer then specified the Republic of the 

Philippines as the country of deportation in the event such action 

should become necessary. The special inquiry officer then further 

advised the respondent of the provisions of 'section 243 (h) of the 

Immigration £014,NationalitT Act, but she, declined, through her attorney, to apply for temporary withholding of her deportation to that 

country. 

The first reason given for the taking of the appeal is that the special 

inquiry officer erred in designating the Republic of the Philippines 

as the country to which the respondent. Would .be, deported, in the 

absentee of evidence that such country would accept her as a deportee. 

Counsel, however, has advanced no arguments in support of this 

position. Neither has he cited authority compelling such, a conclusion. 

Simply stated, the contention is patently -without merit. . . 

Section 212(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

1252) sets out the procedure for dealing with the deportation of aliens, 

and provides that a special inquiry officer shall conduct proceedings 

under that section to determine the.deportability. of any alien..,Pur-. 

 suant to the authorization contained in that section. Of the law,. the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service has promulgated reidations 

(8 CFR 242.1 et seq.) which have been held to meet the standards of 

the statute.' 8 CFR 242.8 spells out tbe authority ofthe speeialing,uiry 

officer to make decisions, including determinations 'as to the country' 

to which an alien's deportation will be directed in accordance with 

section 243 (a) of the statute (8 U.S.C. 1253), but it does not authorize 

or require him to make inquiry of the country selected as -to whether 

or not it will accept the alien AS a deportee. The reason, practically 

speaking, is that this is a ministerial function properly for performance 

by the appropriate District Director of the, Immigration and Naturalization Service, acting through his duly designated subordinates, after 

the order of deportation has become final. • • • • • 

Obviously, if the respondent takes advantage of the voluntary 

departure privilege granted her, the question of place of deportation 

would then become moot and, from a realistic standpoint, the procedure 

desired by counsel would then constitute "putting the cart before the 

horse." Actually, in this connection, the question of whether or not 

a specified country will accept the alien as a deportee is one of comity 

concerning solely the United States and the country in question, and 

Ho Yoh Sze v. Immigration and Naturalization Service 389 F.2d 978; see 

also, Int. Dec. No. 1811, BIA, 11/22/87. 

817 
Interim Decision #1888 

the rights of the alien are in no way infringed by failure to make 

the inquiry prior to designation of the country. All we can add on 

this point is that, obviously, the United States cannot deport an alien 

to a country which will not accept her, and that this respondent 

declined an opportunity to designate the country to which she wished 

to be deported. 

The second reason given for the taking of the appeal is that the 

special inquiry officer failed to designate an alternate country or 

countries of deportation, thereby depriving the respondent of an opportunity to apply for temporary withholding of her deportation thereto. 

Again, however, counsel for the respondent has failed to advance any 

arguments in support of this proposition; nor has he made reference 

to any provision of the law and the regulations, or judicial or administrative authority, compelling acceptance of it. We find the contention 

to be without any merit whatsoever. 

The respondent having failed to designate any country of deportation, the special inquiry officer was required by section 243(a) to 

specify as the place of deportation the country of which the respondent 

is a subject, national or citizen, in this instance the Republic 

of the Philippines. Said country also appears to be the one where the 

respondent resided prior to entering the United States, and the one 

from which she last entered this country. Also, the respondent has 

not referred to any other country which can possibly qualify as a 

place of deportation tinder section 243(a) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act Moreover, the special inquiry officer has the discretion 

to specify places of deportation in the single or plural (8 CFR 242.17 

(0) )- 

Finally, in the unlikely event that the Republic of the Philippines 

refUses to accept the respondent as a deportee, then the proceedings 

will have to 'be reopened for the designation of another country of 

deportation. The respondent will then have the right to apply for 

temporary withholding of deportation to the country or countries of 

deportation selected at that time. 

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

dismissed. 

818