Opinion ID: 696635
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Deportation; the 1985 Entry

Text: 8 As the basis for deportation, the INS charged and the BIA found that Biggs was excludable when she entered the United States following her 1985 visit to the Philippines. See 8 U.S.C. Secs. 1182(a)(20), 1251(a)(1). She argues that this return was not an entry that would render her deportable as an alien excludable at the time of entry. See id.; 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(13). 9 Biggs correctly points out that under certain circumstances, section 1101(a)(13) will except a resident alien's return from abroad from classification as an entry for purposes of section 1251(a)(1). See Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963) (construing 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(13) so to except the returns of resident aliens to the United States if their departures were innocent, casual and brief). Biggs asserts that her 1985 departure to visit her family was innocent, casual and brief, within the meaning of Fleuti. In order to qualify for the exception, however, the alien must first satisfy section 1101(a)(13)'s prerequisites. The section limits the entry exception to aliens having a lawful permanent residence in the United States.... (Emphasis added.) 10 Even if we assume, without deciding, that Biggs' trip to the Philippines was innocent, casual and brief, she does not qualify for the exception because she had secured her permanent resident status through marriage fraud. Biggs thus was not a lawful permanent resident at the time of her 1985 entry. One who has procured a visa or other entry documentation by fraud is excludable by statute. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1182(a)(19). An alien who was excludable at the time of entry is of course deportable. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(a)(1). 11 Biggs also argues that, by instituting deportation proceedings against her in 1988 on the ground of her fraudulent status, the INS violated the five-year statute of limitations for rescission of adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1256(a). Under the above analysis, however, section 1256 and its statute of limitations are not applicable. 12 The INS based its original order to show cause on Biggs' 1985 entry as an alien who was excludable at the time of that entry, and therefore deportable, for having procured a visa by fraud. The Service did not seek any adjustment or rescission of her status. It sought only to deport her. The five-year limitation of section 1256 is simply a limitation on rescission of the change of status; it is not a limitation on deportation. Matter of S, 9 I & N Dec. 548, 555 (BIA 1962). Deportation in fact has no statute of limitations. Id. at 553. On this interpretation of Biggs' argument, then, section 1256(a)'s statute of limitations does not come into play. 3 13 Biggs was deportable as an alien excludable at the time of entry. We therefore affirm the BIA's finding on that issue. 14