Interim Decision #2804 

MATTER. OF HOLANI 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-22907478 

Decided by Board July 10, 1980 

Since the immigration judge is primarily responsible for the physical aspects of the 

record on appeal, and in his judgment a transcript of the hearing was necessary in the 

case in view of the allegations on appeal, the transcription should have been furnished 

by the District Director and the case was remanded for completion of the record. 

Matter of Gibson, 16 MN Dec. 58 (3IA 1976) reaffirmed. 

EXCLUDABL0 

Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 212(a)(20) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20)]—Immigrant—not in possession of valid immigrant visa 

See. 212(a)(14) [9 U.S.C. 1182(a)(14)]—Immigrant — not in possession of valid labor certification 

Sec. 212(a)(19) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(19)]—Immigrant—visa obtained by willful misrepresentation of a material fact 

ON BEHALF OP APPLICANT: ON BEHALF OF SEEVIC 

H. Ralph Klemm, Esquire Robert Godshall 

10 West Broadway, Suite 510 District Director 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, A.ppleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members 

This case presents an appeal from a decision of the immigration 

judge ordering that the applicant be excluded and deported from the 

United States. His decision was based only upon the first of the three 

above-stated charges. The case will be remanded. 

The applicant was ordered detained under the provisions of section 

235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(b), as 

amended, for an exclusion hearing before the immigration judge on 

May 3, 1979. The latter's adverse decision then followed on June 7, 1979. 

The applicant appealed on the ground that she should have been the 

subject of deportation rather than exclusion proceedings. It is contended that the decision of the immigration judge was not supported 

by substantial evidence in the administrative record. It is the position 

of the Service that "The instant appeal appears to be frivolous and 

426 
Interim Decision #2804 

merely an attempt to allow the applicant to remain in the United 

States for as long as possible." 

The record file does not contain a transcript of the oral decision, but 

rather the immigration judge's hand-written hearing work sheet and 

memorandum of decision (Form 1-167). The record before us, therefore, suffers a very serious deficiency. We note, however, that the 

immigration judge repeatedly attempted to have the District Director 

order that the record of proceedings in this case be transcribed, but to 

no avail. 

We hold the immigration judge primarily responsible for the physical aspects of the record before us in matters under his jurisdiction, 

including all material pertaining to the organization and completeness 

of the record hearings; orderly inclusion of exhibits and trial briefs; his 

signed separate opinion; the appeal notice, with attachments; copies of 

relevant procedural communications between the immigration judge, 

respondent, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and all 

appeal briefs with proof of timely service. Since in his judgment a 

transcript was necessary in view of the allegations on appeal, the 

transcription should have been furnished. See Matter of Cruz,16 I&N 

Dec. 463 (BIA 1977); Matter of Charles, 16 I&N Dec. 241 (BIA 1977); 

Matter of Gibson, 16 I&N Dec. 58 (BIA 1976). 

Since there appears to be a genuine issue of whether the applicant 

was duly admitted to the United States, and in light of the above 

deficiency, we have determined that the incomplete record should be 

remanded. The immigration judge may then correct the deficiency, 

enter a formal decision, and return the file to the Board. Accordingly, 

the case will be remanded. 

ORDER: The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with the foregoing opinion.