Matter of Ideis
| Citation | 14 I&N Dec. 701 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | A-17800136,Interim Decision Number 2289 |
| Parties | MATTER OF IDEIS In Deportation Proceedings |
| Court | U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals |
The alien respondent is a native of Jerusalem and a citizen of Jordan. She was admitted to the United States in January of 1968 as an immigrant on the basis of her status as the unmarried daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Deportation proceedings were instituted when it appeared that the respondent was not in fact entitled to the status upon which her admission was predicated. In a decision dated July 31, 1973, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable, but granted her the privilege of voluntary departure. She has appealed that decision. The appeal will be sustained.
The respondent's admission as an immigrant was based upon her father's status as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. It was through her relationship to him that the respondent was accorded the preference which allowed her to immigrate to the United States in 1968. In August of 1972, however, the respondent's father was found to be excludable and he was denied admission as a returning resident immigrant. The respondent's father was ordered excluded primarily because he was found not to have been entitled to the immigrant visa which he had earlier received, and, accordingly, never to have qualified as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
The Service's contention that the respondent's father never properly had a status capable of according immigration benefits to the respondent was an integral part of the case against the respondent; and the respondent held the Service to its burden of proof in this regard. In support of this portion of its case, the Service introduced a copy of the immigration judge's decision in the exclusion proceeding of the respondent's father. That opinion fully sets forth the facts upon which the respondent's father was found excludable. It is clear that the immigration judge there found the respondent's father to have been improperly admitted as a permanent resident.
Counsel for the respondent did not object to the introduction into evidence of a copy of that decision. The respondent does assert that she was denied due process of law because she was not included as a party to the proceedings against her father, especially since the outcome of that case could have a material impact upon her presence in the United States. The respondent's contention in this regard appears to be premised on the assumption that the adjudication in the proceedings against her father is binding on her. This assumption is incorrect.
The determination in the case of the respondent's father should be accorded considerable weight in this proceeding. The decision there was similar to an adjudication of status; the opinion was not a summary order, but instead set forth fully the law and the facts upon which the result was predicated; except for the precise parties, the interest to be protected by the respondent's father in his case was identical to the interest which the respondent presently is protecting; and, the immigration judge in the case of the respondent's father imposed the same burden of proof on the Service which it bears in this proceeding. Nevertheless, the decision regarding the respondent's father is only evidence of the status to which he was entitled under the immigration laws; it is not conclusive of that...
To continue reading
Request your trial