A-6164951
Decided by Central Office August 3, 1951
Suspension of Deportation — Section 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended — "Serious" economic detriment.
Suspension of deportation under section 19 (c) (2) (a) of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended will not be granted, when, on all the facts, it is found that there does not exist a degree of economic detriment sufficient to warrant such grant on the basis of "serious" economic detriment. CHARGE:
Warrant: Act of 1924 — Remained longer — Visitor for business.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL OFFICE
Discussion: This record relates to a 44-year-old married male, a native and citizen of Greece, who last entered the United States at the port of New York, N.Y., on September 24, 1945, via plane as a passenger and was admitted as a visitor for business for 1 year. His temporary stay was extended to September 16, 1947, and he was subsequently denied any additional extension of stay but was granted permission to depart voluntarily on or before March 16, 1948. He has never been admitted to the United States for permanent residence. His only other entry was for a temporary visit of 3 months in 1935. As the alien has remained in the United States without authority beyond the time for which he was granted temporary stay in the United States, he is subject to deportation on the charge set forth in the warrant of arrest.
Upon consideration of the entire record, including exceptions taken, the findings of the officer conducting the hearing, as to deportability, are hereby adopted.
The respondent has applied for suspension of deportation. The record discloses that the alien was legally married to M---- V---- on September 10, 1947, in New York City, N.Y. The immigration status of his wife was adjusted to that of a permanent resident under the suspension procedure, on September 22, 1950. Respondent and his wife were previously married. The respondent's first marriage was terminated by divorce in Athens, Greece, in 1945 and his present wife's prior marriage was ended on the death of her husband in New York City, N.Y., in 1942. The respondent and his wife have no children of their marriage although his wife has three children of her first marriage. According to the record the respondent has an annual income of between $5,000 and $6,000 from a real estate corporation in which he owns all the stock and which he values at approximately $130,000. In addition, the respondent receives dividends amounting to $1,000 per annum from investments in other stocks valued at about $20,000 to $25,000. The total annual income at present is in the neighborhood of $8,000. It is noted, however, that the subject is a playwright and that one of his plays is now in production. It is reasonable to assume that, if successful, further income will be derived therefrom.
The respondent's wife has testified that she is not employed. Her assets in the United States amount to approximately $1,500,000. She has an independent income therefrom which appears to be in excess of $50,000. She stated that she is dependent on respondent for advice in connection with her financial investments and that if he were deported she would be deprived of his guidance and would be compelled to seek costly legal assistance. In addition, it is asserted that their separation would entail the maintenance of two separate households. Furthermore, it has been shown that the respondent's wife has an investment of approximately $67,000 in the production of a play written by the respondent. It is asserted that because of the nature of the play, a psychological allegory, it is essential for the author to personally attend the various production meetings connected with the play. In support of that contention an affidavit has been presented from the play director, who is also a partner in the enterprise. The director contends that the deportation of the respondent might well result in the failure of the play with an accompanying loss of the financial investment made therein. We regard this claim with some scepticism, however, as the play director's affidavit further shows that the play has already had "road tryouts" as a result of which it was necessary to engage another author to revise the script. It is estimated that the respondent's wife would suffer a loss of approximately $100,000 as a result of his deportation. This figure is apparently obtained by computing the expenses which would be incurred in obtaining financial counsel other than the respondent, plus the financial loss from the play.
To summarize, the alien seeks suspension of deportation alleging serious economic detriment would result to his alien spouse if he were deported. His wife's status was adjusted to that of a permanent resident less than 1 year ago through suspension of deportation. She has assets independent of her husband, of well over 1 million dollars. A yearly income is derived therefrom of sufficient amount to maintain her most comfortably. The respondent also has an income sufficient for ordinary needs. It is alleged that his wife's income will be depleted if his counsel is lost to her. No proof as to this has been submitted and, on the facts before us, we do not regard this claim too seriously. We have already commented on our doubts as to the validity of the further claim that money invested in the respondent's play will be lost if he is deported. On all the facts, we find that there does not exist a degree of economic detriment sufficient to warrant granting suspension of deportation based solely thereon. As the respondent does not otherwise qualify for that relief, his application will be denied.
As the respondent is chargeable to a quota that is oversubscribed at the present time he could not readily obtain an immigration visa if granted the privilege of voluntary departure. For that reason pre-examination may not be authorized.
A check of the appropriate local and Federal records has failed to reveal an arrest or criminal record. Inquiry has disclosed that the alien has no connection with any subversive groups. Witnesses have been produced to establish that the respondent has been a person of good moral character for the preceding 5 years. On the record the alien has established eligibility for voluntary departure and that privilege will be authorized.
Order: It is ordered that the suspension of deportation be denied.
It is further ordered that an order of deportation be not entered at this time but that the alien be required to depart from the United States without expense to the Government within such period of time and under such conditions as the officer in charge of the district deems appropriate.