Opinion ID: 668543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rescission Proceedings

Text: The Act provides that 9 [i]f, at any time within five years after the status of a person has been otherwise adjusted ... to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the person was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall rescind the action taken granting an adjustment of status ... and the person shall thereupon be subject to all provisions of this chapter to the same extent as if the adjustment of status had not been made. 10 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a) (1988). An alien applying for permanent residence under Sec. 245 of the Act must be eligible for an immigrant visa. Id. Sec. 1255(a) (1988). The Act specifies certain categories of ineligible persons, including polygamists, persons convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, and persons who have procured a benefit under the immigration laws by means of fraud or willful misrepresentation. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(9), (11), (19) (1988) (current version at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(2)(A), (6)(C), (9)(A) (Supp. IV 1992)). 11 The regulations provide that INS must commence rescission proceedings by serving a notice of intention to rescind containing specific allegations against the resident alien. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 246.1 (1992). The notice must also inform the alien of the right to submit within thirty days an answer under oath rebutting the allegations or a request for a hearing. Id. Moreover, 12 if no answer is filed within the thirty-day period, or if no hearing is requested within such period, ... the district director shall rescind the adjustment of status previously granted, and no appeal shall lie from his decision. 13 Id. Sec. 246.2 (1992). If the alien either files an answer or requests a hearing, a hearing will be held. Id. Sec. 246.3 (1992). 14 In January 1992, within five years of granting appellant permanent residency, INS sent appellant a notice of intention to rescind his permanent resident status. The notice alleged that appellant was a polygamist convicted of crimes of moral turpitude who had made misrepresentations on his application for permanent residence. The notice also informed appellant of his right to submit an answer stating the reasons why rescission should not be made, as well as his right to request a hearing. 15 On January 17, 1992, appellant's counsel replied by letter requesting an extension of time and the production of documents. An attorney subsequently retained by appellant conceded before the immigration judge that a proper answer had not been filed within the time allotted. Appellant is bound by this admission. In re Velasquez, 19 I. & N. Dec. 377, 382 (BIA 1986) (Absent egregious circumstances, a distinct and formal admission made before, during, or even after a proceeding by an attorney acting in his professional capacity binds his client as a judicial admission.). 16 Appellant nonetheless attempts to characterize the January 17 letter as an implied request for a hearing. He argues that the regulations do not require that a specific request for a hearing be made, only that the alien put INS on notice that the matter is contested. Contrary to appellant's contentions, the regulations state clearly that if no answer is filed ... or if no hearing is requested ... the district director shall rescind permanent resident status. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 246.2. Moreover, the January 17 letter does not put the INS on notice that the allegations were contested. A request for the extension of time and the production of documents is a procedural rather than a substantive response. INS thus acted within its statutory and regulatory authority when it rescinded appellant's permanent resident status. 17 Under the regulations, no appeal shall lie from the district director's decision to rescind where an alien does not respond in the proper manner. Id. Furthermore, the statute provides that after rescission, an alien will be treated as if no adjustment to permanent resident status had ever been made. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a). Therefore, the immigration judge properly refused to review the decision to rescind in the context of exclusion proceedings on the ground that he lacked jurisdiction.