A-8970232.
Decided by Board May 10, 1955.
Immigrant visa — Employment offer no longer open — Validity.
An immigrant visa is not rendered invalid because the written offer of employment submitted by the alien to the consul was dated seven months before the issuance of the visa and the prospective employer now states that no employment is available, there being no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the alien.
EXCLUDED:
Act of 1952 — Section 212 (a) (20) — No valid immigrant visa.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: The case comes forward on appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer dated April 8, 1955, finding the applicant inadmissible on the ground stated above.
The facts are fully set forth in the decision of the special inquiry officer. The record relates to a native and citizen of Mexico, 20 years old, male, who seeks admission for permanent residence. He is in possession of a passport issued by the Mexican Government on February 23, 1955, and valid to February 22, 1957. He has also presented an immigrant visa issued March 30,1955, by the American Consul at Monterrey, N.L., Mexico, and valid to July 29, 1955. The immigrant visa bears the symbol "0-1" showing that it was issued to the applicant under section 101 (a) (27) (C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a native of a Western Hemisphere country.
The finding of inadmissibility is predicated upon a finding that the letter of employment dated September 2, 1954, submitted by the applicant did not constitute a valid offer of employment on March 30, 1955, when the immigrant visa was issued and that his prospective employer in fact has indicated no employment is available if he entered the United States. The special inquiry officer reasons that the consul may have overlooked the fact that the letter of employment was approximately eight months old and that the applicant should have been required to present new letters of employment; and in view of the failure of an essential part of the visa application which should have been valid on the date the visa was issued, the immigrant visa issued by the consul was, in fact, invalid. We cannot agree with this reasoning.
The record shows that the applicant has submitted a letter of support from a cousin residing in Norwalk, California, dated June 7, 1954, and submitted two letters, one dated June 25, 1954, and one September 2, 1954, offering employment in Del Rio, Texas. Although notified on September 15, 1954, by the American consul to appear and file his application for an immigrant visa, he was unable to do so because he had not received his Mexican passport and received another notice in January or February 1955 from the American consul. He then proceeded to Mexico City and the Mexican passport was issued to him on February 23, 1955. He testified that he did not appear at the American Consulate in Monterrey until March 28, 1955, because he was short of money. He presented all the documents in his possession on March 28th and returned as requested on March 30th to file his application. He testified that he informed the clerk who filled out his application that he was coming to Del Rio, Texas, but that he did not know whether he had employment with the prospective employer in Del Rio since he had not heard from him in some time, but that if he did not have work there he would then go to California and join his cousin.
The evidence clearly establishes that the consul was in possession of all the facts when he issued the visa and there is no basis for an assumption that he overlooked the fact that the letter of employment was dated September 2, 1954, and was approximately eight months old. The assumption is warranted on the other hand that he was fully aware of the fact that the letter of employment was approximately eight months old and that he considered it acceptable and satisfactory evidence that the applicant was employable and would not be a public charge. There is no indication of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant and his testimony indicates that he revealed all the circumstances regarding his employment to the clerk who handled his visa application. Without a showing of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant, or mistake or error on the part of the consul, or some other intervening fact affecting the validity of the visa, it is believed that the finding by the consul that the applicant was qualified for an immigrant visa should not be disturbed. Uniformity of interpretation by different administrative agencies upon the same set of facts is highly desirable. The evidence establishes that the applicant fully complied with all the requirements laid down by the consul, that he fully apprised the consul of his circumstances and that he practiced no fraud or deception upon the consul. Under the circumstances, it is concluded that the immigrant visa presented by the applicant is a valid one and that he should be found admissible to the United States.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained and that the applicant be admitted to the United States for permanent residence.