Matter of Shaughnessy
| Decision Date | 29 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | A-10229265.,Interim Decision Number 1887 |
| Citation | 12 I&N Dec. 810 |
| Parties | MATTER OF SHAUGHNESSY. In Deportation Proceedings. |
| Court | U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals |
The respondent, a native of England and a citizen of Erie, has been found deportable as a criminal alien under the provisions of section 241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)). An order entered by the special inquiry officer on February 27, 1968 waived the criminal grounds of exclusion pursuant to the authority contained in section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and adjusted the respondent's immigration status pursuant to the authority contained in section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1255). The trial attorney excepts to the grant of a waiver under section 212(h) and the adjustment of the respondent's immigration status pursuant to the provisions of section 245 of the Act. He appeals from the order entered by the special inquiry officer on February 27, 1968.
The respondent, an unmarried male alien, 20 years of age, was admitted for permanent residence at the port of Boston, Massachusetts, on April 26, 1957. He was 10 years of age at the time he was admitted with his mother and father.
The respondent was convicted on July 26, 1966 in the Superior Court, Worcester County, Worcester, Massachusetts of (a) breaking and entering and larceny committed on October 4, 1965 in Worcester, Massachusetts; (b) larceny committed on October 4, 1965 in Worcester, Massachusetts; (c) receiving stolen goods committed on November 4, 1965 in Worcester, Massachusetts; (d) receiving stolen goods committed on November 13, 1965 in Worcester, Massachusetts; (e) receiving stolen goods committed on November 23, 1965 in Worcester, Massachusetts; (f) possession of burglarious tools committed on November 10, 1965 in Auburn, Massachusetts; (g) possession of burglary implements committed on July 22, 1966 in Millbury, Massachusetts; and (h) attempt to break open a safe in violation of section 21, Chapter 265, General Laws of Massachusetts, committed on July 2, 1966 in Millbury, Massachusetts.
The respondent concedes that all of the factual allegations contained in the order to show cause are true and his admissions are supported by the records of his conviction. The record establishes by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable as charged in the order to show cause. The major crimes1 committed by the respondent involve moral turpitude and do not involve a single scheme of criminal misconduct.
The respondent applied for an adjustment of his status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in conjunction with a waiver of his criminal record as a ground of inadmissibility under section 212(h) of the Act. The respondent in the absence of a waiver is excludable under section 212(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, in that he is an alien who has been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
The respondent at the time of the hearing was the unmarried minor child of two naturalized United States citizens. He was born on March 2, 1947 and became 21 years of age on March 2, 1968. He is the beneficiary of a visa petition filed in his behalf by his mother which has been approved by the District Director, thereby granting him the status of an immediate relative of a United States citizen under the provisions of section 201(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)).
Section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the Attorney General with discretion to waive the inadmissibility of criminal aliens and prostitutes who are the spouse or minor children of United States citizens or aliens admitted for permanent residence provided the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his exclusion "would result in extreme hardship" to the United States citizen or lawfully resident alien spouse, parent, son or daughter of such alien and the admission of such alien would not be contrary to the national welfare, safety or security of the United States. The Attorney General must consent to the alien's applying or reapplying for a visa and for admission to the United States.
The special inquiry officer concedes that the exclusion of the respondent from the United States would not entail extreme hardship to his parents. Both parents testified that they are naturalized citizens of the United States; that they are self-supporting and that the respondent has never contributed to their support although he earned salaries as high as $110 to $115 per week. The respondent's parents are separated and under the terms of the separation agreement, the father supports the two younger children but contributes nothing to the support of the mother. There is no provision in the separation agreement for the support of the respondent.
The special inquiry officer reasoned that under ordinary circumstances, he would find the respondent statutorily ineligible for a waiver under section 212(h), but that since he (respondent) would soon reach his majority (March 2, 1968), he would be precluded from the grant of a waiver as the minor child of a United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial