MATTER OF NG
A-20820915
Interim Decision #2723, Decided by Board
July 24, 1979
17 I&N Dec. 63
Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members
(2) Where an alien was found inadmissible in exclusion proceedings, an immigration judge did not have the power to grant him advance permission to reapply for admission after exclusion and deportation.
EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Sec. 212(a)(20), I&N Act (
ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Steven Singer, Esquire; Barst & Mukamal; 127 John Street; New York, New York 10038
ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: James W. Grable; Trial Attorney
By: Milhollan, Chairman; Maniatis, Appleman, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members
In a decision dated February 2, 1978, an immigration judge found the applicant excludable under
An immigration judge‘s authority in exclusion proceedings is set forth as follows in 8 C.F.R. 236.1:
In determining cases referred for further inquiry as provided in section 235 of the Act, immigration judges shall have the powers and authority conferred upon them by the Act and this chapter. Subject to any specific limitation prescribed by the Act and this chapter, immigration judges shall also exercise the discretion and authority conferred upon the Attorney General by the Act as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases. (Emphasis added.)
We have held that immigration judges and the Board on review have the power to grant permission to reapply for admission retroactively where such action is necessary for the complete disposition of the case. See Matter of S-N-, 6 I&N Dec. 73 (BIA 1954; A.G. 1954); Matter of Vrettakos, 14 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 1973 and 1974), Matter of Ducret, Interim Decision 2483 (BIA 1976); 8 C.F.R. 242.8(a) and 3.1(d). See also Matter of Martinez, 15 I&N Dec. 563 (BIA 1976). Cf. Matter of Millard, 11 I&N Dec. 175 (BIA 1965); compare Matter of De-G-, 8 I&N Dec. 325 (BIA 1959; A.G. 1959). Two situations have been identified in which that power may be exercised by the immigration judge and the Board: (1) where the only ground of deportability or inadmissibility would thereby be eliminated; and (2) where the alien would receive a grant of adjustment of status in conjunction with the grant of any appropriate waivers of inadmissibility. Matter of Ducret, supra.
Likewise, absent an express grant of authority in the statute or the regulations,3 before jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for advance permission to reapply for admission may vest in the immigration judge, it must be shown that approval of the application would conclude the proceedings before him. Such showing is not possible in cases involving applications for advance permission to reapply presented to an immigration judge in the course of an exclusion hearing.4
We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel and find them unpersuasive. We accordingly hold that the immigration judge lacks jurisdiction in these exclusion proceedings to consider the applicant‘s request for advance permission to reapply for admission. The following orders will be entered.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: So much of the order of the immigration judge as purports to grant, or grant conditionally, an application for permission to reapply for admission to the United States after deportation is disapproved and set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
FURTHER ORDER: The order that the applicant be excluded and deported from the United States is affirmed.
