A-7388916
Decided by Board August 1, 1952.
Suspension of deportation, economic detriment — Section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended — Exercise of discretion.
(1) The exercise of the discretionary power to grant suspension of deportation pursuant to section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, is not warranted in case of natives and citizens of Mexico, a family group of alien wife/mother and two alien minor children of a citizen husband/father, who are eligible for nonquota status and entered the United States for the purpose of applying for suspension, since the Congress has manifested its disapproval of the grant of suspension under such circumstances by prior rejection of similar cases.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1924 — No immigration visas.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: These cases are before us on appeal from a decision of the Assistant Commissioner dated March 3, 1952, denying the applications for suspension but granting voluntary departure. Respondent D----, a 25-year-old native and citizen of Mexico, last entered the United States at El Paso, Tex., on November 18, 1949, with her husband and children. Her first entry occurred on November 28, 1946. Respondent S---- R----, 7 years old, and respondent O----, 6 years old, are Mexican-born children of respondent D---- and last entered the United States with their parents on November 18, 1949. The children first entered this country on October 27, 1949. Respondents are clearly deportable as aliens entering without visas (secs. 13, 14, act of 1924).
Respondent D---- married a United States citizen in Mexico in 1943. The citizen husband began living in the interior of Mexico in 1938 and continued to live there for two years after their marriage. In 1945, respondent D---- and her husband moved to the border at Juarez, with the husband then coming into the United States daily to work until 1949. The hearing officer determined that the alien's sole purpose for entry was to make application for suspension, although they realized that they could gain lawful admission upon obtaining the necessary documents.
Although respondents are eligible for suspension, Congress does not view the granting of relief in such cases with favor, as manifested by prior rejection of similar cases. Since respondents are eligible to obtain visas to expedite their lawful admission, we feel that voluntary departure is the maximum relief possible. A grant of suspension is definitely not justified in the present circumstances. For these reasons, the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Order: It is hereby ordered that the appeals be dismissed.