ANTTALAINEN
On May 9, 1969, the special inquiry officer granted the respondent the privilege of departing from the United States voluntarily without expense to the Government on or before June 8, 1969, or any extension beyond such date as might be granted by the District Director, and under such conditions as the District Director should direct. The special inquiry officer also provided for the respondent‘s deportation from the United States to Finland, on the charge contained in the order to show cause, in the event of her failure so to depart. The appeal from his decision, which brings the case before this Board for consideration, will be dismissed.
The record relates to a female alien, a native and citizen of Finland, who last entered the United States on or about March 7, 1968. She was then admitted as a visitor for a temporary period until June 30, 1968. She was thereafter authorized to remain in the United States in that status until December 30, 1968. She has, however, remained here since the latter date without authority. The foregoing establishes the respondent‘s deportability on the
The special inquiry officer has granted the respondent the privilege of departing from the United States voluntarily without expense to the Government. Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the record ,before us supports the special inquiry officer‘s action n this respect.
This appeal is concerned solely with the special inquiry officer‘s denial of the respondent‘s request for the issuance of subpoenas to appropriate officials of the Department of Labor. The purpose of this request was to develop the record with respect to their refusal to issue the respondent a labor certification for employment as a “live-in” domestic by a Mr. & Mrs. C. David Robinson of San Francisco, for whom the respondent presently works in that capacity. According to the record, the reason for the denial of the labor certification was that the position held by the respondent could be filled by a “live-out” domestic, and that qualified workers were available in the area involved (p. 4).
The point was raised in this deportation proceeding on the theory that if the respondent were issued a labor certification, she would be entitled to adjustment of her status to that of a permanent resident under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
The law (section 212(a) (14), Immigration and Nationality Act;
The respondent cites the case of Dong Yup Lee v. INS, 407 F.2d 1110 (9 Cir., 1969), as authority for the proposition that an
Dong Yup Lee was admitted to the United States as one of the musicians accompanying a touring Korean dance group, in the status of a nonimmigrant alien of distinguished merit and ability (section 101(a) (15) (H) (i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
Lee‘s case subsequently came before this Board for consideration on appeal from a special inquiry officer‘s order denying his application for adjustment of his status to that of a permanent resident (A-14609823, November 21, 1967) and thereafter (April 15, 1969) on a motion for reconsideration of the same issue. In both instances, we pointed out that since Lee was not the beneficiary of an approved visa petition, he was ineligible for adjustment of his status to that of a permanent resident because an immigrant visa was not readily available to him. We did not on either occasion review the action of the Service in denying the respondent‘s visa petition, for the reason that under the regulations (
ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.