Interim Decision *1467 

MAT= or Sus 

In Exclusion Proceedings 

A-8731121 

Decided 0 Board' May 6, 1965 

Appellant, who was admitted to the United States for permanent residence in 

31054 when W years or age; who was immediately returned by bar father to 

Mexico where she has since continuously resided except for temporary visits 

to this country when 12 years old, was inadmissible under section 

212(a) (20), Immigration and Nationality Act, at the time of her application 

for admission as a returning resident on November 2, 1964, upon presentation of Form 1-151 issued to her 'shortly after her 1954 entry, since she was 

not returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence. after a temporary absence abroad. 

Mrca.rmanis• Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (20) [8 1182(a) (20)]—Immigrant not in possession of valid immigrant visa 

or similar entry document. 

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

inquiry officer dated December 30, 1964, finding the appellant inadmissible on the ground . stated above and ordering that she be ex-

,cluded and deported. from the United States. 

The record relates to a native and citizen of Mexico, born. May 20, 

1947, who is presently applying for admission to the United. States as 

returning resident alien. She presented a Form 1-151, Alien 

Registration Receipt Card, also known as a. resident alien's border 

crossing . card, showing that she was admitted for permanent residence on August 24, 1954, at E1 Paso, Texas. The appellant re-

•calved this card. shortly after she immigrated to the United States 

and has not since that time applied for or received any other entry 

document of any kind from the Service: or from the American 

'Consulate in Mexico. 

The record establishes that the appellant's lather is a native and 

'citizen of Mexico and her mother is a. native-born citizen of the 

United States. The mother married. the father in Mexico in 1940. 

-The mother had moved. to Mexico when she was five years old. On. 

171 
Interim Decision t#1467 

August '21, 1954, the father and the five children, including the 

appellant, were admitted to the United. States for permanent residence. Inasmuch as the father did not have a place to reside in 

the United States, was not steadily employed, and could not afford 

to remain in the United States, he sent the children, including the 

appellant, back to Mexico in a, taxi to reside with the mother. The 

appellant has resided. in Mexico continuously since then except for 

visits of two or three months each with relatives when 12 years old. 

She married a United. Siite.s citizen on February 22, 1964 when she 

was 16 years old, lived with her husband for about a month until 

he enterci the service, then lived with his mother in El Paso, Texas 

and returned to Mexico in. September 1964 after birth of her baby 

in El Paso, Texas on September 6, 1964. At the time she applied • 

for admission - into the United' States on November 2, 1964 and was 

held for a hearing before a special inquiry officer under the provisions of se.dim 2;35(b) of the Immigration. and Nationality Act, as 

amended, the appellant intended to go to El Paso, Texas to wash 

clothes and intended to resume her residence in El Paso as soon as 

possible since it is her husband's desire that she live with his 

mother during his absence in the armed forces. 

Counsel contends that an infant, such as the appellant who Was 

then seven years old, who secures an immigration visa, and is thereafter absent because of the will and domination of the parents, has 

not voluntarily departed and, has net lost the rights obtained under 

an immigration visa, if she returns at the first opportunity after 

emancipation, since she was theretofore under legal compulsion to 

accompany and be subject to parental authority. He. cites a number 

of cases which hold that an unemancipated minor who was absent 

from the United States in company with his parents does not make 

an entry upon his return from such departure and is not subject 

to exclusion as.a' member of a criminal class under 8 U.S.C. 1251(a) 

(4) or under the predecessor statute, 8 U.S.C. 

What we are concerned._ with in this case is not whether or not 

the appellant' is making an entry into the United States 2•but 

whether she qualifies as an immigrant who is returning to an unre- ' 

linquished lawful permanent residence after a temporary absence 

letting Valenti v. Karnallt, 1 F. Supp. 370 (N.D., N.Y. 1932) ; Matter of 

Dauer, Int. Dee. No. 1291 (The latter decision was cited and followed in Mat. 

-ter of Degree, A-8258660 (March Eli loss) ). 

2CT. Fleet! v. Rosenberg, 374 U.S. 449 in which the Valenti case was cited as 

an instance in which a district court refused to hold that an alien who had 

been absent only briefly had made an entry upon his return to the United 

States. 

172 
Interim Decision 4t1167 

abroad.• The appellant Wa8 lawfully admitted for permanent resi-. 

dence on August 24, 1954. The term "lawfully admitted for permanent residence" is defined, in section. 101(a) (20) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act as meaning the status o1 having been lawfully 

accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States 

as an immigrant in accordance with the immigration laws, such 

status not having changed. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 101(a) 

(33) states that the term "residence" means the place of general 

abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, 

actual dwelling place in fact, witho;it regard to intent. (Emphasis 

supplied.) 

Section 211(a) provides that no immigrant shall be admitted into 

the United States unless at the time of application for admission he 

has a valid unexpired immigrant visa. The pertinent regulation, 

8 CFR 211.1 provides that a valid unexpired immigrant visa shall 

be presented by each arriving immigrant alien except an immigrant' 

who * * * (c) is returning to an unrelinquished. lawful permanent 

residence after a temporary absence•abroad * * * (1) not exceeding 

one year and presents a Form 1-151, Alien Registration Receipt 

Card, duly issued to him. 

The_ appellant and the other children were sent back to Mexico 

by her father on the same date that she entered the United States 

for permanent residence on August 24, 1954. She continued to reside in Mexico, except fat' temporary visits when 12 years old, and 

has not applied for admission for permanent residence for ten years. 

The regulation, 8 CFR 211.1 requires an immigrant be returningto 

an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence after a temporary 

residence abroad not exceeding one year, in which case she May 

present a Form 1-151, Alien Registration Receipt Card, as an 

acceptable document. The appellant's absence does not come within 

the terms of the regulations since she is not returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence iriathe United States after a 

temporary absence abroad not exceeding one year. 

The record establishes that the appellant never secured permanent 

residence in the ,Unifed States after her admission on August. 24, 

1954 for permanent residence but immediately was returned by her 

father to Mexico where she has since resided for a period of ten 

years. Her place of residence or general abode after her return in 

1954 was in Mexico. Under the definition of the term "residence" 

in section 101(•) (33) of the Immigration • and Nationality Act, 

intent is not a factor' It was therefore properly found .that the 

The case of Ileuti v. Rosenberg, 874 U.S. 449, which Involved an innocent, 

casual and brief absence is clearly.inapplicable. 

173 
Interim Decision #1467 

Form 1-151 which she presented at the time of her last application 

to enter the United States was not a valid entry document or at the 

time she entered the United States to become married in February 

1964. The appeal will be dismissed. However, as the wife of a 

citizen member of the armed forces and a native of a nonquota 

country, she should have no difficulty in obtaining an immigrant 

visa. 

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

dismissed. 

174