Interim Decision #1898 

MATTER OF SENIOR 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-12357361 

Decided by Bawd August 29,1968 

Notwithstanding he now possesses the requisite familial relationship, an alien 

who entered the United States with a nonqnota immigrant visa obtained on the 

basis of his bigamous marriage to a U.S. citizen and a section 212(h) waiver 

of criminal grounds of excludability under section. 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is Ineligible for the benefits of section 241(f) of the 

Act since the section 212(h) waiver is null and void as he was not married 

to a citizen at time of grant and, therefore, he was not "otherwise admissible" 

at entry, as required by statute. 

CHARGES • 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [8 1251(a) (1)1—Excludable at 

time of entry—immigrant—no visa. 

Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (1) [81113.0. 1251(a) (1) ]—Excludable at 

time of entry—alien who has procured visa by fraud. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

Joseph L. Andrews, Esquire 

Sachs and Spector 

152 West 42d Street 

New York, New York 10036 

ON BUMF Or emus: 

R. A. Vielbaber 

Appellate Trial Attorney 

The case comes forward on appeal from the decision of the special 

inquiry officer rendered on April 26, 1968, in which he found the 

respondent deportable as charged but granted voluntary departure 

with an. alternative order of deportation to England, or if not accepted 

there, then to the respondent's native country of Jamaica. The special 

inquiry officer denied the respondent's request to terminate the 

proceedings. 

The respondent is a 41-year-old married male alien, a native and 

citizen of Jamaica, who last entered the United States at El Paso, 

Texas on December 13, 1962, at which time he was reentering the 

United States for the purpose of resuming his permanent residence 

in this country. The respondent had initially entered the United States 

861 
Interim Decision #1898 

at New York on February 4, 1962, being admitted as a permanent 

resident on the basis of a nonquota visa issued to him on February 2, 

1962. At the time of applying for said visa, the respondent alleged 

that he was then legally married to a United States citizen. 

The record amply shows that at the time he applied for the visa he 

was in fact still married to his first wife who was not a citizen of the 

United States or an alien admitted for permanent residence. Also at 

the time he received his immigrant visa, he was not otherwise admissible to the United States because he had been convicted of two crimes 

involving moral turpitude and, therefore, was excludable under section 212(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He received 

a waiver of this ground of inadmissibility under section 212(h), Immigration and Nationality Act, on the basis that his exclusion would 

result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen spouse. The 

crimes for which the respondent was convicted in Jamaica in 1948 

consisted of petty larceny for which he was fined $35.00 and also nine 

counts of obtaining money by false pretenses for which he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, of which he served 16 months 

Since these convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude and 

since there were two such convictions, the respondent, was clearly 

excludable from the United States at the time of his entries on February 4, 1962 and December 13, 1962 unless he obtained a waiver under 

section 212(h) of the Act, which as aforementioned he had. 

The respondent's failure to reveal these crimes at the time he applied 

for a nonimmigrant visa and the fact that he represented.that he was 

the spouse of a United States citizen amounted to his obtaining the 

visa by fraud and hence he was excludable under section 212(a) (19) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent also 

obtained a waiver of this ground of excludability pursuant to section 

212(i) on the basis that he was the apouco of a United States citizen. 

The thrust of the respondent's arugment that the proceedings should 

now be terminated is based upon his contention that he should be 

granted relief from deportation under section 241(f), Immigration 

and Nationality Act, which provides in effect that the provisions of 

section 212(a) (19) under which he would be excludable and deportable shall not apply if the alien is the spouse of a United States citizen, 

and if otherwise admissible. The respondent cites the case of Scott v. 

Immigration and Naturalization Service, decided by the United 

States Supreme Court on December 12, 1966, and cited as 385 U.S. 214. 

This case held in effect that the circumventing of quota restrictions by 

misrepresentation and fraud would not render a person otherwise 

inadmissible so as to preclude relief from deportation under section 

241(f), Immigration and Nationality Act. 

862 
Interim Decision #1898 

In the instant case, it would appear that relief under section 241(f), 

as interpreted in the Scott case (supra) would be available to the 

respondent if he was otherwise admissible to the United States. We 

concur with the conclusion of the special inquiry officer that the 

`respondent was not otherwise admissible to the United States by reason of his two convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, which 

thus rendered him inadmissible under section 212(a) (9) of the Act. 

It will not avail to argue that he obtained a waiver of this ground of 

.exclusion under section 212(h) of the Act since such waiver was obtained itself on the basis that his exclusion would result in extreme 

hardship to his United States citizen spouse. He was not married to a 

United States citizen at that time and such waiver is, as held by the 

special inquiry officer, completely null and void. The respondent was 

not entitled to this nonquota immigrant visa because the person filing 

the visa petition on his behalf was neither his wife nor a United States 

citizen as alleged in the petition. The respondent had contracted a 

marriage to a United. States citizen on August 5, 1961, but at that 

time he was still married to his first wife whom he had married on 

August 19, 1959 and by whom he had two children. 

The respondent was clearly excludable on both occassions when he 

entered the United States, on February 4, 1962 and again on December 13, 1962 when he entered the United States as a returning resident 

alien. This being the case, the respondent is deportable as charged and 

we will thus affirm the decision of the special inquiry officer and dismiss 

the appeal. We will not disturb the grant of voluntary departure. 

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

dismissed. 

863