Opinion ID: 673239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applicable Time Periods

Text: 13 Even under the broader definition of minister, the BIA did not err in concluding that Wu was not a special immigrant minister. When an application for adjustment of status is renewed at a deportation hearing, the immigration judge and the BIA consider two different two year time periods to determine whether the alien has been continuously carrying on the vocation of minister: (1) the two years preceding the alien's initial application for adjustment of status before the District Director and (2) the two years preceding the date of the Show Cause hearing before the immigration judge. See Matter of Lasike, 17 I & N Dec. 445, 447 (1980).
14 Wu's argument that he worked continuously as a minister for two years prior to June 1984 is not supported by the record. On August 11, 1982 Wu filed an Application for Change of Nonimmigrant Status with the INS. On that form, he listed his occupation as a high school teacher and social worker. No mention was made of his being a minister. Even if ministerial duties are construed to include non-religious counseling, Wu's August 1982 application may properly be considered in determining his status.
15 Wu contends that from February 1986 to September 1986, he continued to work at Faith Cumberland Presbyterian Church in San Antonio. Thereafter, he claims he worked as a minister at the Chinese Christian Fellowship Church in Hacienda Heights, California until the date of the Show Cause hearing. 16 In addition to his own testimony, Wu introduced a letter from the Hacienda Heights congregation's Chief Executive Officer stating that Wu has been an extremely active assistant pastor and youth leader of Hacienda Heights Christian Fellowship Church since September of 1986. The letter indicated that while there might be other persons who could minister in limited ways, Mr. Wu is ... the only person with the proper training, who also speaks both Taiwanese dialect and Mandarin, that we have been able to locate. The letter did not specifically list work duties, and it did not state how much time he devoted to his different functions. 17 The IJ discounted the Hacienda Heights letter. It failed to specify the terms of or actual duties of his office. The IJ also noted that the letter contained language that was virtually identical to that in a September 1985 letter written by the pastor at Wu's San Antonio church. 18 While Wu clearly attempted to comply with the statutory requirement, we can not conclude that evidence presented by Wu is so strong that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find that he satisfied the requirements of a special immigrant minister. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 112 S.Ct. at 817. 19 AFFIRMED.