NIESEL
Respondent‘s request to withhold deportation to a named country under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, following her designation under section 243(a) of the Act of that country as the country to which she prefers to be deported is, in effect, a withdrawal of the designation. - Since the United States does not recognize the East German government, respondent‘s claim to be a subject, national, or citizen of East Germany does not preclude her deportation to the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) within step 3 of section 243(a) of the Act, that being the country in which she was born, the country in which her place of birth is situated at the time she is ordered deported, the country which had sovereignty over her birthplace at the time of her birth, and the country in which she resided prior to entering the country from which she entered the United States.
- Step 3 of section 243(a) of the Act does not require that preliminary inquiry be addressed to the country to which respondent is to be deported to ascertain its willingness to accept her (other than perhaps the seventh-listed country, a country which is willing to accept the alien into its territory).
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Remained longer than permitted after nonimmigrant admission (temporary visitor).
The special inquiry officer found respondent deportable on the ground stated above and granted her voluntary departure, providing however, that if she failed to depart, she should be deported to West Germany. Respondent applied for a stay of deportation on the ground that she is a national of East Germany and if deported there, would be faced with physical persecution. The special inquiry officer denied her application. Respondent filed this appeal from the denial.
Respondent‘s case was previously before this Board. On March 13, 1962 the Board entered an order dismissing respondent‘s appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer finding her deportable upon the ground stated above and granting her voluntary departure. Fol
The place to which deportation may be ordered is determined by one of the steps in a three-step plan designed by Congress. Step one provides that the alien shall be deported to a country designated by him if that country is willing to accept him. If the alien fails to make such designation, the next step contemplates the deportation of the alien to the country of which he is a subject, national or citizen, if such country is willing to accept him. If such country refuses to accept him, then the third step permits the Attorney General to order deportation to a country selected in his discretion from any one of the seven categories listed in the section (Leong Leun Do v. Esperdy, 197 F. Supp. 604 (S.D.N.Y. 1961);
Applying the three-step plan to the facts before us, we find that in accordance with step one, respondent was given an opportunity to designate a place of deportation. This she first refused to do, but ultimately designated East Germany, following the designation with the request that the deportation be withheld because she would be faced with physical persecution if returned there. The designation of a country followed by a request for withholding deportation to that country is, in effect, a withdrawal of the designation (Chao Chin v. Murff, 168 F. Supp. 349 (S.D.N.Y., 1958)). This brings us to step two. Respondent claims that the country of which she is a subject,
Counsel contends, moreover, that under judicial construction of the Act, before deportation to a country can be ordered, the Service must make a showing that the proposed country has agreed to accept the alien. Lu v. Rogers, 164 F. Supp. 320 (D.C. 1958), is cited. When designating a country in step three as a place of deportation, there is no requirement that preliminary inquiry be addressed to the country to which deportation is ordered (other than perhaps to the seventh country in the list—a country which is willing to accept the alien into its territory). Lu v. Rogers, supra, cited by counsel was one in which deportation was contemplated to a country of which the alien was a subject, national or citizen. In such event inquiry must be made as to whether the country is willing to accept the alien. In the instant case, this preliminary inquiry is not required.
Since the Government does not intend deporting respondent to East Germany, her offer to establish that she would suffer physical persecution if deported there was properly rejected.
Contentions concerning the reopening of proceedings to enable respondent to apply for an adjustment of status under
The appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.