MATTER OF LEPOFSKY
In Exclusion Proceedings
A-20127580 A-20598113.9
Decided by Board
June 6, 1974
Interim Decision #2293 | 14 I. & N. Dec. 718
EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(20) [
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS: Ernest C. Lee, Esquire
1430 W. Peachtree Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
The applicants, husband and wife, are natives and citizens of Canada who arrived in the United States in 1972 and were paroled into this country for the purpose of disposing of property here. In a decision dated September 19, 1973, the immigration judge found both applicants excludable as charged. He entered an order permitting the applicants to withdraw their applications for admission and to depart from the United States by midnight on October 19, 1973. An alternative order was entered ordering their exclusion and deportation from the United States in the event of failure to depart as required. The male applicant has appealed from that decision. Since the female applicant‘s name is not on the Notice of Appeal, we will take her case on certification pursuant to
The record clearly shows that the applicants wish to remain in the United States permanently while the male applicant operates and cares for his place of business. We agree with the immigration judge‘s conclusion that the applicants are immigrants, and are therefore excludable under section 212(a)(20) of the Act because
The immigration judge unquestionably had the power to allow the applicants to withdraw their applications for admission at the time of the hearing. However, by entering an order allowing withdrawal upon departure from the United States within one month, the immigration judge attempted to authorize the applicants to remain in this country conditionally for that period. Such an order was an infringement on the discretionary authority of the District Director under
Both the immigration judge and the Board lack authority to exercise the parole power vested in the District Director by
On appeal, counsel urges that the applicants be allowed to remain in the United States pending processing of their applications for immigrant visas. We realize that this case presents sympathetic factors which led the immigration judge to attempt to fashion some sort of relief for the applicants. However, the authority to stay the deportation of excludable aliens or to allow such aliens to remain here on parole is vested solely in the District Director.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Further order: The order of the immigration judge is withdrawn.
Further order: The applicants are excluded and shall be deported from the United States.
