Interim Decision #1983 

MATTER OF BonoumAwn 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-18504220 

Decided by Board June 20, 1969 

Since there is no provision in the immigration law or regulations thereunder 

which authorizes a nonimmigrant under section 101 (a) (15) (F)•(ii) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, to accept employment, 

respondent, who accepted employment following admission as the nonimmigrant spouse of a student (F-2), is deportable under section 241 (a) (9) of 

the Act for failure to comply with the conditions of her nonimmigrant 

status. 

ClIARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (9)]—Failed to 

comply with conditions of nonimmigrant status—

spouse of a student. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: 

James Canfield, Esquire 

460-Sansome Street 

San Francisco, California 94111 

(Brief filed) 

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: 

Stephen M. Suffin 

Trial Attorney 

. (Brief filed) 

This appeal comes up from a decision of the special inquiry officer finding the respondent deportable as a non-immigrant who 

failed to comply with the conditions of her nonimmigrant status. 

He granted her the privilege of voluntary departure. Upon our 

review. of the record and the arguments presented on appeal, we 

shall affirm his decision. 

Respondent is a 25-year-old married female who entered the 

United States as a spouse of a student (F-2) on June 11, 1964, 

at New York City. She was authorized to remain in the United 

States until August 28, 1969. In 1966, respondent accepted employment as a housekeeper and she is now employed for a chain 

of discount stores. The respondent testified that she has been separated from her husband since September 8, 1968, and is presently seeking a divorce. 

306 
Interim Decision #1983 

Counsel for the respondent maintained throughout the hearing 

that spouses of nonimmigrant students do not violate their status 

by accepting employment. He argued that there is no statute or 

regulation prohibiting persons in an F-2 status from working. 

The Service, in conjunction with its appeal brief, presented Form 

1-358, given to nonimmigrants, which contains the instruction 

that nonimmigrants are precluded from obtaining employment 

unless authorized by the Immigration Service. There was also 

presented in evidence a memorandum from the Deputy Regional 

Commissioner dated February 1, 1968, stating that there is no 

provision in the immigration law or regulations which authorizes 

persons in an F-2 status to accept employment (Ex. 2). Counsel 

for respondent on appeal contends that neither the general instructions contained in Form 1-358 nor the policy statement contained in the memorandum are sufficient basis to support a deportation charge. Relying on Matter of S—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 574 

(1960), and Matter of Wang, 11 I. & N. Dec. 704 (1966), counsel 

insists that the obtainment of employment is not inconsistent 

with the nonimmigrant F-2 status. 

We believe that the memorandum of the Deputy Regional Commissioner gives sufficient rebuttal to counsel's argument. In that 

memorandum it is stated: 

.. there is no provision in the immigration laws or regulations whereby 

the F-2 spouse of an F-1 student may be granted permission by the Service 

to accept employment. 

In that respect the situation of an F-2 spouse is different from that of 

the J-2 spouse of an exchange alien. Because of the clearly expressed congressional intent with regard to J-2 spouses, Service regulations (8 CPR 

214.2(3) (1)) provide that a J-2 spouse may apply to the Service for permission to accept employment ... 

The F-2 status was created by the 1961 congressional amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act. 1At the same time, 

Congress created the J-1 and J-2 statuses, which relate to exchange visitors and their spouses. Prior to that time, spouses of 

students were admitted to the United States as nonimmigrant 

visitors. As such they were precluded from taking employment. 

The effect of the creating of the F-2 status was to permit the 

spouse to remain in the United States for an identical period in 

which the student was authorized by the terms of his visa. 1 Although the 1961 amendment did permit spouses of exchange visiSection 101(a) (15) (F) (ii) of the I. & N. Act, as amended by section 

109 (a) of the Act of September 21, 1961 (75 Stet. 534). 

2 Senate Report of the Committee on. Foreign Relations on Senate Bill 

1154, S. Rep. No. 372, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. p. 18-19 (1961). 

307 
Interim. Decision #1983 

tors (J-2) the opportunity of employment, Congress declined to 

extend that same benefit to spouses of nonimmigrant students. It 

is clear from the legislative history behind the creation of the 

F-2 status that Congress had a limited objective: that of uniting 

the nonimmigrant student and his family during their temporary 

sojourn in the United States.' It had no intention of extending 

the privilege of employment to those persons who previously were 

prohibited from working under the visitor's visa. Therefore we 

believe that the memorandum from the Deputy Regional Commissioner and the policy outlined in Form 1-358 clearly establish 

that the immigration law forecloses employment to F-2 nonimmigrants and we conclude respondent's employment is a ground for 

deportation under section 241(a) (9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the special 

inquiry officer. 

As we have pointed out in Matter of Aguirre, Interim Decision 

No. 1940, (BIA 1969), the execution of the special inquiry 

officer's order has been stayed during the pendency of this appeal. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and it is hereby dismissed. 

It is further ordered that, pursuant to the special inquiry 

officer's order, the respondent be permitted to depart from the 

United States voluntarily within 32 days from the date of this decision or any extension beyond that time as may be granted by 

the District Director; and that in the event of failure so to departthe respondent shall be deported as provided in the special inquiry officer's order. 

3 2 United States Code Cong. and Administrative News, 2789 (1961). 

308