Interim Decision #1961 

MATTER OF ESCALANTE 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-18437984 

A-11944377 

Decided by' Board April 18, 1969 

In the absence of supporting evidence, as required by regulations (8 CFR 

103.5), a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is denied. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (9))—After admission as a nonimmigrant under section 

101 (a) (16) of raid Act, failed to comply with the 

conditions of the nonimmigrant status under 

which admitted (temporary visitor as to both). 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: 

John F. Sheffield, Esquire 

412 West Sixth Street 

Los Angeles, California 90014 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF or SFAVICE: 

Sam 1. Feldman 

Trial Attorney 

(Brief filed) 

This is an appeal from the decision of the special inquiry 

officer, rendered on December 9, 1968, denying the respondents' 

motion to reopen proceedings. The respondents are man and wife, 

natives and citizens of Ecuador. The female respondent last entered the United States at Los Angeles, California on or about 

February 20, 1968, as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure authorized to remain until November 20, 1968. The male respondent 

entered the United States at Los Angeles, California on or about 

March 14, 1968, as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure authorized to remain until October 12, 1968. Both respondents were 

charged with accepting employment in the United States. Deportability is conceded and the respondents were granted the privilege of voluntary departure. Failing to depart as required, warrants of deportation were issued on December 4, 1968. 

The motion to reopen proceedings is grounded on the fact that 

the female respondent had previously entered the United States 

223 
Interim Decision #I961 

on July 20, 1959 as a permanent resident. New proceediiigs are 

requested for the purpose of applying for waivers under sections 

211(b) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 

motion recites that the female respondent resided in the United 

States from 1959 until she returned to Ecuador in 1964 to be 

with her ailing mother. While in Ecuador, the female respondent 

became ill and, as a result, her return to the United States was 

delayed beyond the period of time when her Form 1-151 would 

have permitted her reentry. 

The Service brief in opposition to the motion to reopen concedes that the female respondent was admitted as a permanent 

resident on July 20, 1959. The Service brief states that the female 

respondent then returned to Ecuador in December 1963, and remained there until December 1966. On December 19, 1966, the 

American Consulate General at Guayaquil, Ecuador returned the 

female respondent's alien registration card (Form I-151) to the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service in Los Angeles, California, after concluding that she had abandoned her residence. The 

Service argues that the female respondent, having subsequently 

entered the United States on December 20, 1966, and February 

20, 1968 as a nonimmigrant visitor, is not entitled to the relief 

sought in her motion to reopen. 

We have reviewed the evidence of record including the briefs 

on appeal and conclude that the motion to reopen should be denied. As the Service notes, the regulations provide that a motion 

to reopen shall state new facts to be proved at the reopened hearing and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material, 8 CFR 103.5. There is no evidence to support the female 

respondent's motion showing that she qualifies for relief under 

section 211 (b) or 212(c). A mere assertion of a previous status 

as a permanent resident is insufficient to order these proceedings 

reopened for the purpose of applying for relief under sections 

211(b) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 

respondent is required to state additionally that she meets the 

statutory waiver requirement as to residence. Her motion fails to 

show this and, therefore, we affirm the decision of the special inquiry officer. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeals be and the same are 

hereby dismissed. 

224