Matter of Lau

• Decision Date: 05 January 1968
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 1827,A-15984947.
• Citation: 12 I&N Dec. 573
• Parties: MATTER OF LAU. In Deportation Proceedings.
• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals

12 I&N Dec. 573

MATTER OF LAU.

In Deportation Proceedings.

Interim Decision Number 1827

A-15984947.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board January 5, 1968.

(1) An order to show cause is not defective for failure to specify the country of deportation and the subdivision of section 243(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act under which designated.

(2) Where respondent did not designate a country of deportation and was thereafter ordered deported to Formosa, the country of his citizenship, and alternatively to Hong Kong, there was no abuse of discretion by the special inquiry officer in designating Hong Kong as the alternate country of deportation since the record shows that respondent resided in Hong Kong from 1957-1967; that he left Hong Kong to join the vessel which brought him to the United States as a crewman; and that he is in possession of a seaman's identity book and a seaman's discharge book issued to him by the government of Hong Kong.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251] — Nonimmigrant (crewman) — remained longer.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Jules E. Coven, Esquire Lebenkoff & Coven 1 East 42d Street New York, New York 10017

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Irving A. Appleman Appellate Trial Attorney

The special inquiry officer, in a decision dated July 6, 1967, granted the respondent the privilege of voluntary departure, but provided for his deportation from the United States to the Republic of China on Formosa, alternatively to Hong Kong, on the charge contained in the order to show cause, in the event of his failure to so depart. The appeal from that decision, which brings the case before this Board for consideration, will be dismissed.

The record relates to a male alien, approximately 24 years of age, who was born on the mainland of China. He last entered the United States on or about February 11, 1967. He was then admitted as a non-immigrant crewman for the period of time his vessel was to remain in United States ports, but in no event to exceed 29 days. He has remained in the United States since the expiration of the temporary period of his admission without authority.

The foregoing establishes the respondent's deportability on the above-stated charge. This has also been conceded. The point, therefore, needs no further discussion.

The special inquiry officer has granted the respondent the privilege of voluntary departure. Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the record before us supports said official's action in this respect.

It is immaterial that the order to show cause on which these proceedings are predicated did not specify the country to which the Government would request respondent's deportation. There is no requirement that the order state the section of the statutory provision under which the Government would proceed in this connection. Our reasons for rejecting this argument follow.

A proceeding before the special inquiry officer under an order asserting that the alien is to show cause why he should not be deported under certain sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act is merely investigative. It does not amount to an order of deportation. It does no more than obtain direct jurisdiction over the person of the alien, and set in motion an inquiry which may follow broad lines (see Haymes v. Landon, 115 F.Supp. 506).

If deportability is not established, then the question of place of deportation becomes moot....