Matter of Ramirez
- Reporters:
On November 10, 1965, the special inquiry officer denied the respondent‘s application for adjustmеnt of his status to that of a permanent resident, as a matter of administrative discretion; granted his alternative request for voluntary departure; and рrovided for his deportation from the United States to El Salvador, on the charge contained in the order to show cause, in the event of his failurе to so depart. On January 13, 1966, this Board dismissed the respondent‘s appeal which was directed solely to the special inquiry officer‘s denial of his application for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident. Our decision, however, rested solely on the ground that the amendment to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (P.L. 89-236), effective December 1, 1965, rendered the respondent ineligible for
The trial attorney, acting in behalf of the Immigration and Naturalizаtion Service, now moves that we reconsider our prior decision, in the light of section 3 of the Act of November 2, 1966 (P.L. 89-732, 80 Stat. 1161), providing that applicаtions for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, filed by natives of the Western Hemispherе countries prior to December 1, 1965, can be considered and decided under the law in effect when they were filed. The request is that, on the basis оf this latest pertinent legislation, we withdraw our order of January 13, 1966; consider the respondent‘s application for adjustment of his status to that of a permanent resident on the merits; and, finally, that we affirm the special inquiry officer‘s order denying his application, as a matter of administrative discrеtion.
The record relates to a 48-year-old married male alien, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who last entered the United States on or about October 16, 1964. He was then admitted as a nonimmigrant temporary visitor for a period until March 16, 1965. On June 11, 1965, his application for adjustment of status to thаt of a permanent resident was administratively denied. He was thereafter granted the privilege of departing from the United States voluntarily without the institution of deportation proceedings for a period which, with extensions, extended to August 5, 1965. He has, however, remained in this country to the present timе.
The foregoing establishes the respondent‘s deportability on the above-stated ground. This was conceded in the course of the hearing before the special inquiry officer. It stands unchallenged here. This aspect of the case, accordingly, needs no further discussion.
The speciаl inquiry officer has already granted the respondent the privilege of voluntary departure. Suffice it to say, in this connection, that the record before us supports said official‘s action in this respect.
The respondent‘s wife and five children are natives, nationals and residents of El Salvador. He has no relatives in this country. Prior to coming to the United States, he had been in business as a tailor in El Salvador for 15 years. He sold his partnership in that businеss to finance his trip to the United States, leaving part of the funds derived from its sale with his wife.
In applying for his temporary visitor‘s visa, respondent indicated that he desired to come to the United States for two months to visit and have his eyesight checked. He did not, however, visit a doctor until he had been in this country for nine months.
Approximately two months after his arrival here, respondent began
As already indicated, the respondent left part of the proceeds of the sale of his tailor shop with his wife when he came to the United States. Apparently, in view of this fact and the additional fact that two of his children are employеd in El Salvador, the respondent has not had to send funds to his wife. She apparently has earned some income from work as a dressmaker. The respondent has been employed in this country as a tailor, and earns a salary of approximately $100 per week.
In the last analysis, the grant of аn application for adjustment of status as provided for in section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act is a discretionary matter. This Board has cоnsistently held that the extraordinary discretionary relief provided for in that section of the law should only be granted in meritorious cases. (See Matter of O—T—, A-13326833, B.I.A., 7/16/65; Int. Dec. No. 1508.) On the basis of the factors hereinbefore recited, we find that there are no outstanding equities in this case crying out for favorable action on the application. We particularly note that the respondent has no close family ties or dependents living in the United States, and that his wife and their fivе children are natives, citizens and residents of El Salvador. Our opinion, in this respect, is not altered by the points stressed in the respondent‘s reply to the Service motion for reconsideration, to wit:
(1) He is presently exempted by law from the necessity of securing employment certification under the provisions of section 212(a) (14) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (
8 U.S.C. 1182 ), in connection with his application for adjustment of status in the United States;(2) if he now departs, he will be required to secure such certification before he may be allowed to return to this country; and
(3) it would be unnecessarily harsh tо require the respondent to leave the United States after all the time he has been present here, and thereafter perhaps losе whatever opportunity he may have had to become a permanent resident.
Accordingly, we agree with the special inquiry officer thаt on the basis of the entire record the respondent‘s case fails to measure up to the standard required for favorable exercise of the Attorney General‘s discretion to adjust his status to that of a permanent resident. That official‘s decision, therefore, is approved.
ORDER: It is ordеred that the motion be granted; that our decision of January 13, 1966, be withdrawn; and that the special inquiry officer‘s decision of November 10, 1965, be and the same is hereby affirmed.