A-7118191
Decided by Board June 14, 1956
Willful misrepresentation — In procuring agricultural laborer's permit — Section 212 (a) (19), Immigration and Nationality Act.
The appellant, an illiterate Mexican, in 1948 when he was 20 years old sought to enter the United States as an agricultural laborer. A Mexican official demanded and received 300 pesos from him and appellant was then given a Mexican agricultural laborer's card in another's name, which despite his protest he was told he had to use. He obtained documentation from an American officer by presenting this card and by using the name of the other person. Considering the circumstances under which the appellant received the car, his youth, his illiteracy, and the fact that he would not have been inadmissible had he been issued a card in his true name, it is held that his act was not voluntary or willful and he, therefore, is not excludable under section 212 (a) (19) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
EXCLUDABLE:
Act of 1952 — Section 212 (a) (9) ( 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (9)) — Admits elements of crime — Violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Section 212 (a) (19) ( 8 U.S.C. 1182 (a) (19)) — Procured documentation by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a a material fact.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This is an appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer excluding the appellant upon the grounds stated above. The appeal will be sustained.
The appellant is a 28-year-old married male, a native and citizen of Mexico, who applied for admission to join his wife and children in the United States for permanent residence. He is in possession of the appropriate documents. The first ground of exclusion is based upon the fact that in 1949 when questioned by an immigration officer the appellant used an alias. The second ground of exclusion is based upon the fact that in 1948, the appellant obtained admission to the United States as an agricultural laborer by representing himself to be a different individual to whom the Mexican Government had issued an identification card.
The appellant is illiterate. He is one of a family of 16 children. From the age of 12 he was engaged in agricultural employment. In 1948, at the age of 20, he left home with the intention of proceeding to the United States as an agricultural laborer. To achieve this goal, he had to obtain an agricultural laborer's card from the Mexican Government. When he applied for the card, he was told that he would have to pay an unofficial payment of 300 pesos to a Mexican official. He made such a payment and was given a card which had been issued in the name of another individual. Being illiterate, he asked one of the officials to explain the card to him. When he learned that the card named one other than himself, he asked the official if he could not just "lose" that card and obtain one in his own name. He was informed by the official that he had to use the card which he had purchased, and was led by one of the Mexican officials to the American officer who issued the final card which authorized entry as an agricultural laborer. He entered the United States with this card and used the name of the person to whom the card had originally been issued. Subsequently, when questioned by an immigration official, he used the name of the person to whom the card had been issued as his own.
At his exclusion hearing, the special inquiry officer read the alien the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001 concerning the making of false statements or submission of false writing to the Government and asked the appellant if he admitted committing a violation of that section when he knowingly and willfully falsified a material fact on February 3, 1949, by informing an immigration officer that he was the individual in whose name the card had been issued. Appellant refused to admit a violation of the section. The special inquiry officer found that the appellant had admitted the essential elements of a violation of the section. Not every violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 involves moral turpitude ( Matter of B---- M----, A-8949019, 6 IN Dec. 806, B.I.A., 1955). The alien did not admit that he was guilty of fraudulent conduct. We do not find that the first ground of inadmissibility is established. Nor do we believe that the second ground of exclusion is sustained. Taking into consideration the uncontradicted statements concerning the manner in which the appellant secured his card, his youth, his illiteracy and the fact that he would not have been inadmissible had he been issued the card in his true name, we believe it proper to hold that his act was not a voluntary or willful one and he, therefore, does not fall within the scope of section 212 (a) (19).
The appellant is married to a native-born citizen of the United States and has 2 native-born minor children. His wife also has 2 children by a former marriage. The appellant supports the family unit. We believe that his admission should be ordered.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby sustained.