A-8581279.
Decided by Board October 5, 1955.
Immigrant visa — Fraud or misrepresentation in procurement — Concealment of marriage — Deportability under section 241 (a) (1) of Immigration and Nationality Act.
(1) An alien who obtained a visa from the American consul by using her maiden name and stating that she was single, when, in fact, she was married, is held to have cut off inquiry and investigation of her background and gained an advantage to which she was not otherwise entitled.
(2) Therefore, such alien is deportable under section 241 (a) (1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as having been excludable at time of entry as one whose visa was procured by fraud and misrepresentation.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1952 — Section 241 (a) (1) — Excludable at time of entry — Admits committing act which constitutes the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry: Adultery and Perjury.
Lodged: Act of 1952 — Section 241 (a) (1) — Excludable at time of entry — Visa procured by fraud or misrepresentation
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This case is before us on appeal from the special inquiry officer's order of April 20, 1955, directing the respondent's deportation from the United States in the manner provided by law solely on the charge lodged at the hearing, as above.
This record relates to a 36-year-old female alien, a native of Costa Rica and a British subject by marriage. She entered the United States at Miami, Florida, on December 6, 1953. She was then admitted for permanent residence upon presentation of a nonquota immigrant visa. Said document referred to her nationality as Costa Rican and her status as single and was issued to her in her maiden name.
Respondent was born in Costa Rica in 1918 and resided there with her parents until she was seven or eight years of age. Then her parents took her to Panama where she resided for a period of approximately eight years, or until she was 15 or 16 years of age. Thereafter, they took her to Jamaica, British West Indies. After she had resided in that country approximately nine or ten years she married a native thereof. Accordingly, she became a British subject by virtue of her marriage. She resided with her husband in Jamaica until about 1952, when she left him. There has been no legal separation.
About two months after separating from her husband in Jamaica, respondent applied for and was issued a Costa Rican passport by the Costa Rican consul in Jamaica. In obtaining that passport, she represented herself as single. According to the record, she represented herself as single so that the Costa Rican consul in Jamaica would issue her a Costa Rican passport, which he allegedly would not have done had the consul known of her marriage to a British subject by which marriage the respondent also became a British subject. Upon obtaining the Costa Rican passport, the respondent returned to the place of her birth in Costa Rica. There she applied for and was issued the nonquota immigrant visa with which she gained entry into the United States.
In applying for her visa in Costa Rica, she represented herself as single and gave her maiden name. She claims that she did so for fear that the American consul would not issue her a visa if he knew of her marriage. The reason she gave is that the consul would have refused to issue her the visa unless her husband had agreed to her departure from Costa Rica, claiming that she could not leave Costa Rica without the consent of her husband. However, according to the record, the husband was in Jamaica. In any event, whether or not the husband would have given consent to her departure from Costa Rica and whether or not she could have left that country without same is immaterial here.
In connection with the foregoing, the special inquiry officer has pointed out that respondent would have been entitled to a nonquota visa despite her marriage. However, the special inquiry officer has also pointed out that she deceived the American consul by concealing her true name, giving her maiden name and stating she was single, because she thereby prevented the consul from making the necessary inquiry and investigation of her background which might have resulted in a denial of her visa. He has also pointed out that the penal certificates which she submitted, including one from Jamaica, were submitted by the respondent to the consul in her maiden name. Accordingly, the special inquiry officer concluded that the respondent obtained her visa in her maiden name for the sole purpose of gaining an advantage to which she would not have been otherwise entitled, by cutting off necessary inquiry and investigation.
There is no question but that the true identity of an alien seeking a visa to enter the United States is always material ( Matter of B---- and P----, 2 IN Dec. 638, 645). The reason is that the furnishing of a person's true name permits the propriety of his admission to be scrutinized; if he describes himself as someone else, that scrutiny is rendered impossible ( United States ex rel. Fink v. Reimer, 96 F. (2d) 217). From the facts of this case, the use of the respondent's maiden name in obtaining the visa cut off inquiry and investigation of her background and thereby rendered it impossible to have the propriety of her admission into the United States scrutinized. That is, by using her maiden name in the manner in which she did, she gained an advantage to which she was otherwise not entitled. Accordingly, we concur in the conclusion of the special inquiry officer that the alien's deportability on the lodged charge is sustained.
The courts have sustained the deportability on the grounds, inter alia, that she used her maiden name to obtain a visa ( Daskaloff v. Zurbrick, 103 F. (2d) 579). In this case, the woman obtained a visa in her maiden name, claiming to be a widow.
In view of the foregoing, we find this appeal must be dismissed and we will now so order.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.