Opinion · United States Board of Immigration Appeals
IN THE MATTER OF O----, 4 IN Dec. 472 (BIA 1951)
4 IN Dec. 472
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Board of Immigration Appeals
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1951-09-05
- Topic
- general
IN THE MATTER OF O----, 4 IN Dec. 472 (BIA 1951) IN THE MATTER OF O----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings. A-7985967Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board September 5, 1951 Place of deportation — Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950 — 8 C.F.R. 151.5 (a) and 8 C.F.R. 152.2 (e). Section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended by section 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (Title I "Subversive Control Act of 1950"), and 8 C.F.R. 151.5 (a) and 8 C.F.R. 152.2 (e) contemplate that the determination of the place of deportation is primarily a matter for determination by the administrative officer, and that the local field officer has a degree of discretion whether to permit the alien (ordered deported) to depart at his own expense.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed IN THE MATTER OF O----, 4 IN Dec. 472 (BIA 1951). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
IN THE MATTER OF O----,4 IN Dec. 472(BIA 1951)
IN THE MATTER OF O----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings.
A-7985967
Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review
U.S. Department of Justice
Decided by Board September 5, 1951
Section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, as amended by section 23 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (Title I "Subversive Control Act of 1950"), and 8 C.F.R. 151.5 (a) and 8 C.F.R. 152.2 (e) contemplate that the determination of the place of deportation is primarily a matter for determination by the administrative officer, and that the local field officer has a degree of discretion whether to permit the alien (ordered deported) to depart at his own expense.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa. Act of 1917 — Stowaway.
BEFORE THE BOARD
The case concerns a native and citizen of France, 48 years of age, who entered the United States on September 7, 1946 as a stowaway. The order of deportation is based upon the charges of "no immigration visa" and "entered as a stowaway."
The alien requested voluntary departure without an order of deportation. He is without family ties in the United States and has been here but a short time. These facts coupled with the circumstances of his entry into the United States, operate against a grant of the application for departure without an order of deportation.
We note that in his argument before representatives of the Commissioner counsel stressed the respondent's alleged fear for his life if he were returned to France; that he desires to go to Argentina. During the hearing the respondent testified that he intended, if granted departure, to go to Argentina, Canada, or Spain. The decision of the Assistant Commissioner states:Page 473
He has stated that the respondent would be willing to depart under an order of deportation. The authority to permit such a departure is vested in the officer in charge of the district (8 C.F.R. 152.2 (e)). Accordingly, our decision is limited solely to a determination whether or not the alien should be deported. On the record before us his deportation should be directed.
The order of the Assistant Commissioner is "that the alien be deported from the United States, pursuant to law * * *."
Section 20 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950, provides:
That the deportation of aliens provided for in this act and all other immigration laws of the United States shall be directed by the Attorney General to the country specified by the alien, * * *.
No alien shall be deported under any provisions of this act to any country in which the Attorney General shall find that such alien would be subjected to physical persecution. * * * (8 U.S.C. 156).
Regulations promulgated following the enactment of the foregoing provide as follows:
* * * The hearing officer shall have no authority * * * to designate at whose expense or to which country the alien shall be deported (8 C.F.R. 151.5 (a)).
When an alien has been ordered deported, the district director of the district within which the alien is located or is in custody may, in the absence of express directions to the contrary, permit the alien to depart to any country of his choice by reshipping foreign one way as a seaman, or by any other method, at the alien's expense. * * * (8 C.F.R. 152.2 (e)).
The foregoing clearly contemplates that the determination of the place of deportation is primarily a matter for determination by the administrative officer, and that the local field officer has a degree of discretion whether to permit the alien to depart at his own expense. Previous to determination by the local field officer whether to permit the alien to depart at his own expense, and previous to determination by the administrative officer as to the country to which the alien should be deported, our order will be limited to dismissing the appeal. If the respondent feels that the determination by either officer contravenes his rights under the statute, he may appeal therefrom.Order:It is ordered that the appeal from the order of the Assistant Commissioner be dismissed.
However, I desire to point out that there is pending before this Board request of counsel that respondent be permitted to pay the cost of his removal from the United States. The request of counsel was not acted upon either by the Commissioner or by the Board. Under section 23 of the Subversive Control Act of 1950 amendingPage 474section 20 of the 1917 Immigration Act it is provided that "The deportation of aliens provided for in this act and all other immigration laws of the United States shall be directed by the Attorney General to the country specified by the alien * * *." The respondent, therefore, has the privilege of selecting the place to which he wishes to be deported. To permit him to pay the cost of such deportation is merely a convenience, which not only would save the appropriation of this Department, but would be a definite saving to the taxpayers as well. I know of no reason why the Immigration and Naturalization Service or this Board should be so reluctant to pass on such a simple request the granting of which carries such obvious advantages to the Government.Page 475