A-7934061
Decided by Board November 15, 1956
Suspension of deportation — Section 244 (a), Immigration and Nationality Act — Not granted unless outstanding equities or factors are present to supplement minimum statutory requirements.
Suspension of deportation, pursuant to section 244 (a) of the act, should not be granted where the alien entered the United States as a stowaway, has no dependents here, his residence has been of short duration (9 years in this case), and he merely meets the minimum requirements for such relief. In the absence of outstanding equities or factors to justify the exercise of this discretion, the alien's motion to reopen deportation proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for suspension of deportation is denied.
DEPORTABLE:
Act of 1924 — No visa.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: Respondent, a 52-year-old married male alien, native of Chersano, Province of Pola, subject of Italy, appeals from a decision of a special inquiry officer on May 9, 1956, which denied a motion to reopen the proceedings to give the alien an opportunity to apply for suspension of deportation. Respondent was found deportable on February 6, 1951, following hearing, and an order for his deportation is outstanding.
Counsel has been heard in oral argument. Deportability is apparently conceded. The family situation of the respondent is conceded. It has been urged that the proceedings should be reopened because respondent has been in this country for a period of 9 years, is a person of good moral character and reputation, is gainfully employed, has no criminal record, and is desirous of having his wife and children, who are now residing in Italy, come to the United States to join him. It is argued that the special inquiry officer denied the instant motion because he was afraid to exercise his sound discretion and to reopen the proceedings.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence. Respondent entered the United States on December 9, 1947, as a stowaway. He has never been admitted to this country for lawful permanent residence. He has no dependents or close family ties here. His spouse and children are abroad. Apparently there are no unusual hardships. He has been physically present in this country for a period of 9 years and there is no evidence to show he is not a person of good moral character and loyal to the Government of the United States.
An alien who enters the United States as a stowaway, has no dependents here, has no home which would be broken up, his residence has been for a short duration, and he merely meets the minimum requirements for suspension of deportation, should not be granted that discretion unless there are some outstanding equities or factors to justify the granting of maximum relief. In this case we find no outstanding meritorious factors or equities to warrant the granting of suspension of deportation. Consequently, no purpose would be served by reopening the proceedings to receive an application therefor.
Nor do we find, from a review of the facts and the hearing procedure, any evidence of abuse of discretion by the special inquiry officer. There is a presumption that officials perform their duties and do not violate them ( Chin Chuck Ming v. Dulles, 225 F. (2d) 849, and National Lawyers Guild v. Brownell, 225 F. (2d) 552). We find that denial of the motion to reopen was a proper exercise of discretion. The appeal will be dismissed.
Melachrinos v. Brownell, 230 F. (2d) 42; Vichos v. Brownell, 230 F. (2d) 45; and Matter of S----, E-12287-8-9, 5 IN Dec. 695.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal from a decision of the special inquiry officer denying a motion to reopen the proceedings in this case be dismissed.