MATTER or L—D—L—RIn EXCLUSION Proceedings 

A-11978268 

Decided by Board April 10, 1962 

Misrepresentation—Section 212(a)(19)—Materiality. 

Willful concealment in visa application of two arrests in Mexico, following 

which applicant was issued a police certificate of good conduct showing no 

criminal record, held to be material misrepresentation within section 

212(a) (10) of 1952 Act. Applicant has failed to meet burden of establishing that misrepresentations did not cut off inquiry which might have resulted in denial of visa, and hence he is excludable on ground his visa was 

obtained by fraud. (Compare Matter of S — and B C , 9 26.) 

EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952---Section 212(a) (19) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (19)—Visa 

obtained by fraud or by willful misrepresentation. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: The special inquiry officer ordered the. applicant's 

admission to the United States as a returning resident alien and 

certified.the case to the Board for final decision. 

The applicant, a 40-year-old married male, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, was admitted to the United States for permanent residence 

on May 16, 1960, upon surrender of a nonquota immigrant visa 

issued on the same date. On August 10, 1960, he sought to return to 

the United States after a visit to Mexico. He is in possession of an 

alien registration receipt card (Form 1-151). The Service, being of 

the belief that applicant obtained his visa by fraud because he misrepresented his arrest record when he obtained the visa, held him for 

a hearing before the special inquiry officer. The special inquiry 

officer entered a decision on September 21, 1960, finding that a misrepresentation had been made as to the respondent's arrest reeurd, 

but that, the misrepresentation was not a material one. Applicant's 

admission was ordered as a returning resident. The district director took an appeal. On October 27, 1961, the Board reopened proceedings for consideration of the case in light of the standards 

concerning misrepresentation promulgated by the Attorney General 

in Matter of S— and B—C—, 9 136. (Oct. 2, 1961). Reopened 

hearing was held on November 21, 1961. On December 26, 1961, the 

623 
special inquiry officer entered the order now before us, permitting 

the applicant to enter the United States as a returning resident. 

The Acting District Director at El Paso, Texas, has furnished a 

brief in opposition to admission of the applicant and the Service 

representative has appeared at oral argument requesting that the 

decision of the special inquiry officer be reversed. In connection with 

the appeal from the special inquiry officer's first order, counsel for 

the applicant submitted a brief which will be considered at this time 

The applicant has admitted that he willfully concealed the fact 

lie had been arrested in Mexico on two occasions. He denies he has 

ever been convicted of any crimes. 

Applicant's Mexican police record reveals that he was arrested in 

Mexico on October 24, 1957, and in lawsuit 131/957 was charged with 

tlleft from a bus line for taking money from collecting boxes (a 

metal box containing $265.50 Mex. currency belonging to the bus 

company was found in his possession). The record reveals that 

applicant confessed having been involved in this kind of activity for 

several months; it alsp reveals that on August 4, 1959, he was detained for investigation, and that on April 19, 1960, a certificate 

of good conduct was given to him after he had presented an official 

release from the cause of lawsuit 131/57 (Exh. 5). 

A certification from the Third Penal Court of Bravos District, 

Chihuahua, reveals that during lawsuit 131/957, in which the applicant was charged with abuse of confidence in prejudice of the bus 

company, a ruling was made on November 1, 1959, which granted 

pardon to the defendant (applicant) in accordance with Article 103 

of the Code of Social Defense, and 303 of the Code of Procedures on 

Matters of Social Defense, so that the penal action was decreed 

annulled and dismissed, and that on April 19, 1960, a copy of the 

ruling was given to the applicant. This copy was presented to the 

police and on the same day applicant was given a certificate of 

good conduct showing he had no criminal record (Exhs. 5 and 6). 

He presented this certificate to the American consul when he applied for a visa. 

On May 2, 1960, he executed an application for an immigration 

visa showing that he had neither been convicted of crime nor that ha 

admitted committing a crime involving moral turpitude, and answering in the negative the question as to whether he had been arrested, 

charged, indicted, or convicted of crime and whether he had been 

an inmate of a civilian or military prison (Exh. 4, items 7 and 32; 

page 7, Hearing of August 17, 1960). His visa was issued on 

May 16, 1960. The applicant has admitted that he had lied to the 

consul concerning his arrest record because he feared that if he had 

told the truth he would not be given a visa (Exh. 3, page 2). 

624 
At the hearing the applicant explained that he, along with two 

others, had been tried on a charge of taking money from the bus 

company but that no judgment had been entered, and that the charge 

as to him was withdrawn on the understanding that he would pay 

3000 pesos to the company and that he did make such a payment. 

He said that one of the others charged had been convicted and was 

released on bond and the third party also was required to pay a 

certain amount of money as restitution. The applicant denied that 

he had been guilty of the charge. 

At the reopened hearing, he stated he did not know whether the 

person he thought had been convicted had actually been convicted. 

Applicant did know that the person had been released on bond. 

Applicant stated that he was not guilty of the charges. He stated 

that he had, paid the 3000 pesos despite his innocence because the 

person who had actually stolen the money had been scared into 

implicating the applicant and another, and the applicant being without representation and having been confined about 12 days thought 

he could secure hie releaoc only by paying the money. Applicant 

said that he had been working as a mechanic outside the, building 

containing the offices of the bus company; that the person who had 

committed the crime had been employed in the building; that the 

person had approached him as they were about to leave for the 

day and had secured the applicant's permission to take the applicant's tool box into the building, where, to applicant's knowledge, 

he intended placing a small package into it; that the person had 

returned with the applicant's tool box in which he had placed a 

package; and that when the applicant was arrested, it was discovered that the small package contained money belonging to the 

bus company. The applicant claims he was unaware of what was 

in the package, or that the actual thief intended using the tool box 

to steal from the company. 

The special inquiry officer ruled that the record failed to establish that the applicant was ineligible to receive a visa because he 

had not been convicted of a crime, because the arrests themselves do 

not make the applicant excludable, and because the applicant had 

not made an admission of the commission of crime or its essential 

elements. The special inquiry officer held that the misrepresentation did 31,111-off inquiry concerning the applicant's criminal record 

but that if an inquiry had been made it would not have resulted in 

a determination that the applicant was ineligible for the issuance of 

the visa, and the misrepresentation was, therefore, not material. 

Counsel contends that since the criminal charges were dismissed 

and the applicant does not admit that he committed a crime; he was 

not ineligible for the issuance of a visa and could not have been 

denied one, so that the misrepresentations were not material. 

625 

654377-(33---41 
The acting assistant district director urges that the circumstances 

reveal that the applicant was involved in a crime and it cannot be 

said that the consul would nevertheless have issued a visa, and that 

in any event the uncertainties created by the alien's obstruction of 

the inquiry should be resolved against him On oral argument, the 

Service representative contended that the test as to- materiality 

used by the special inquiry officer was whether the actions of the 

applicant created a ground of inadmissibility; whereas, the rule set 

up by the Attorney General in Matter of 8— and B—C—, supra, is 

that either a ground of inadmissibility must have existed or that 

an inquiry might have resulted in a determination that a ground of 

inadmissibility existed (in arriving at a determination in the matter, any uncertainty resulting from the alien's obstruction of the 

:nquiry may be resolved against him). The Service representative 

urges that had the true facts been in the consul's possession, the 

inquiry he could have conducted might have resulted in a determination that a ground of inadmissibility el:dated, became evidence 

might have been procured from the police or persons charged with 

the crime which would have enabled the consul to confront the 

applicant in such a manner that there was a reasonable possibility 

that applicant might have admitted the offense or that he would have 

failed to satisfy the consul that he was admissible. 

We believe the misrepresentation was material. Applicant was 

found in possession of stolen property; he was implicated in the 

theft by a person who . had apparently stolen the property; he is 

reported to have confessed to the crime; he agreed to make restitution; his account of the manner in which the property was taken 

reveals, despite his present disclaimer, that he could well have been 

involved. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the 

applicant has borne the burden of establishing that his misrepresentation did not cut off a line of inquiry which might have resulted 

in the denial of the visa to him. 

The applicant's visa was obtained by fraud and he is excludable. 

The order of the special inquiry officer will be withdrawn. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer 

of December 26, 1961, be and the same is hereby withdrawn. 

It i8 further ordered that the applicant be excluded from the 

United States on the ground stated above. 

626