Interim Decision #2215 

MATTER OF KHAN 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-30593139 

Decided by Board July 26, 1973 

The fact an alien was inspected and erroneously admitted to the United States 

by a Service officer does not operate to estop the Service from deporting the 

alien. 

CHARGES: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(1) U.S.C. 1251(a)(1)]—Excludable at time 

of entry—Not of status specified in immigrant visa 

under section 203(a)(9) of Act. 

Act of 1952— Section 241(aX1) [6 U.S.C. 1261(a)(1)] Excludable at time 

of entry (section 212(a)(20) of Act)—immigrant, not in 

possession of a valid immigrant visa. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

A. W. Hargreaves, Esquire 

Fallon, Hargreaves, Bixby & McVey 

30 Hotaling Place 

San Francisco, California 94111 

(Brief Filed) 

Donald L. Ungar, Esquire 

Phelan, Simmons & Ungar 

617 Washington Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Bernard J. Hornbach 

Trial Attorney 

(Brief filed) 

The respondent moves us to reconsider our decision of April 17, 

1972 dismissing his appeal from the order of the immigration 

judge, which found the respondent deportable and granted him 

voluntary departure. The record relates to a male native and 

citizen of Pakistan, 22 years of age, who was admitted to the 

United States for permanent residence on March 1, 1971, classified 

for visa issuance purposes as the accompanying son of a fifth 

preference immigrant. In fact, the alien whom he was supposed to 

accompany never came to the United States and died before the 

respondent's arrival here. In our previous decision we held that 

the terms "accompanying or following to join" in section 203(a)(9) 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act do not encompass preeed397 
Interim Decision #2215 

ing the principal beneficiary of the visa preference classification to 

this country.. 

Counsel now puts forth a different theory. He contends that the 

Government is estopped from deporting the respondent, because 

the Government admitted him into the United States in the first 

place. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, is 

not bound by an error committed by an immigrant inspector at the 

time of admission, Pearson v. Williams, 202 U.S. 281 (1906); Mannerfrid v. Brownell, 145 F. Supp. 55 (D.D.C., 1956), affirmed 238 

F.2d 32 (D.C. Cir., 1956); Lazareseu. v. United States, 199 F.2d 898 

(C.A. 4, 1952), affirming 104 F. Supp. 771 (D. Md., 1952); U.S. ex rel. 

Vajta v. Watkins, 179 F.2d 137 (C.A. 2, 1950); Matter of M—, 4 I. & 

N. Dec. 532 MIA, 1952; and A.G., 1952). Section 241(aX1) of the Act 

presupposes that the situation will arise where the alien's excludability at entry will be discovered only after his admission. Counsel's contention would limit enforcement of section 241(aXl) to 

cases involving fraud by the alien. That provision, by its terms, 

reaches all those who manage to enter the United States in 

violation of the legislative edict barring them. This is true even if 

the aliens were examined and passed by an immigration officer. 

Under the pattern of the statute, if the officer erred, or was 

deceived, the alien may be ordered deported at any subsequent 

time. 

Notwithstanding the original decision to admit him, the respondent's admissibility can be challenged in later deportation 

proceedings. He was clearly not admissible. The immigrant inspector had no authority to admit him. That officer's error does not 

operate to estop the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 

deporting the respondent once the error has been discovered. 

ORDER: The motion is denied. 

398