Matter of Ambrosio

• Decision Date: 08 June 1973
• Docket Number: A-14516837,A-13786486,Interim Decision Number 2210
• Citation: 14 I&N Dec. 381
• Parties: MATTER OF AMBROSIO In Deportation Proceedings
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

14 I&N Dec. 381

MATTER OF AMBROSIO

In Deportation Proceedings

Interim Decision Number 2210

A-14516837

A-13786486

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board June 8, 1973.

(1) Where deportability was conceded, appeal waived, and the original deportation hearing was not transcribed, due process is not violated by refusal to direct transcription of the original hearing in connection with an appeal from an order denying a motion to reopen the proceedings, where a transcript is not required for a proper appraisal of the appeal.

(2) Motion to reopen the deportation proceedings for the purpose of applying for relief under section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is denied, since the benefits of section 241(f) are not available to an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant visitor who has been ordered deported on a "remained longer" charge, regardless of the truth of any assertion of fraud at entry now advanced (Matter of Mangabat, Interim Decision No. 2131, and Cabuco-Flores v. INS, 477 F.2d 108 (C.A. 9, 1973)).

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)] — remained longer after admission as nonimmigrant.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: LLoyd A. Tasoff, Esquire, 408 South Spring Street Suite 1016—Continental Building Los Angeles, California 90013.

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Joseph A. Shonman, Trial Attorney.

This is an appeal from an order of an immigration judge denying respondents' motion to reopen the deportation proceedings. The appeal will be dismissed.

Respondents are aliens, husband and wife, natives and citizens of the Philippines, who were both admitted to the United States on or about September 13, 1969 as nonimmigrant visitors and remained longer than permitted. At a joint hearing before an immigration judge on October 19, 1972, at which they were represented by present counsel, they admitted the truth of the factual allegations of their respective orders to show cause and conceded deportability. The immigration judge found them to be deportable and granted them the privilege of departing voluntarily on or before January 19, 1973. Appeal was waived. In accordance with the customary practice when there is no appeal, the hearing was not transcribed.

On January 18, 1973, counsel for respondents filed a motion to reopen to consider an application for termination of the proceedings under section 241(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The motion, which is unsupported despite the requirements of 8 CFR 103.5 and 242.22, states merely, "The parties have been told that they had a preconceived intent to remain in the United States when they arrived and thus have committed fraud. They have two United States born citizen children and thus would be eligible for consideration. We therefore request on their behalf a reopening of the proceedings." In an order dated February 9, 1973, now before us on appeal, the immigration judge denied the motion. He called attention to the fact that at the original deportation hearing, at which counsel had questioned respondents extensively, no evidence of fraud had been adduced. In addition, the immigration judge pointed to the respondents' entries as nonimmigrants and this Board's ...