Case Information
MATTER OF VALDOVINOS In Deportation Proceedings A-10630609
Decided by Board September 11, 1973
A lawful permanent resident alien's brief departure to Mexico, withthe intention
of assisting aliens in entering the United Statеs unlawfully, constitutes a
meaningful interruption of his residence
(Rosenberg v. Fleuti,
Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(13) (8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(13)]—Prior to entry, knowingly and for gain еncouraged, induced, assisted, abetted or aided any other alien to enter or to try to enter the United Mateo in violation of law.
This is an appeal from a decision of an immigrаtion judge, dated December 8, 1972, which found the respondent deportable and directed his deportation. The appeal will be dismissed.
The rеspondent is a 50-year-old male alien who is a native and citizen of Mexico. He was admitted for permanent residence on January 24, 1957. On March 4, 1971, he departed the United States for Mexico and returned the same day as a "returning resident alien:' However, shortly after entering the United Stаtes he was arrested for willfully or knowingly encouraging or inducing the entry into the United States of an alien not entitled to enter or reside within the United Statеs in violation of section 274(aX4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(4)); and knowingly transporting an alien who is in the United States in violation of section 274(аX2) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(2)). On May 5, 1971, the respondent plead guilty, and was found guilty, of violat- ing section 274(aX2) of the Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(aX2)). He was sen- tenced to imprisonment for four years and is presently incarcerated at a Federal Correctional Institution. At a deportation hearing on December 5, 1972, the respondent admittеd that he entered into an agreement with three Mexican citizens to transport them to Los Angeles, California. He conceded that he hаd transported them within the United States knowing that they were in the United States illegally. However, he emphat- ically denied that he had knowingly and for gain, encouraged, induced, assisted, abetted, or aided anyone to enter or try to enter the United States in violation of the law. He asserted thаt he had never seen or contacted the Mexican citizens prior to meeting them in Calexico, California.
The respondent's testimony concerning his initial contact with the three Mexican citizens directly contradicts the factual account two of the Mexican citizens gave to an immigration officer. Both stated, under oath, that the respondent had met them in Tijuana, B.C., Mexico on March 3, 1971 and made arrangements to meet them the next day in Mexicali, B.C., Mexico. They stated that they met the respondent on the following day and he instructed them to cross the bordеr into the United States and he would pick them up in Calexico, California. Both. Mexican citizens stated that the respondent provided them with entry cards and, in return for respondent's assistance, they paid him $100 each. After carefully evaluating the entire record, we sustain the
immigration judge's finding that on March 3, 1971, the respondent did knowingly and for financial gain, induce and assist three aliens in entering the United States illegally; and on March 4, 1971, the respondеnt departed the United States with the intent to further assist the aliens in entering this country.
The only issue remaining which pertains to the deportability of
the resрondent under section 241(a)(13) is whether he performed
his illegal activities prior to making an "entry" into the United
States. Since the respondent was аdmitted for permanent resi-
dence before his March 4, 1971 departure, he can be subject to the
consequences of an "entry" upon his return only if that departure
constitutes a meaningful interruption of his resident alien status,
regarded as meaningful." 2 Although we recognize that the reason
for departing the country is only one of several major factors
which should bе considered in determining whether a departure is
a meaningful interruption of residence, 3 we conclude that this one
factor, standing alone, can be deemed sufficient to warrant a
finding that a meaningful interruption of residence has occurred. 4 In the present case, we conclude that respondent's excursion to
Mexico from the United States was neither innocent nor casual. It
was not innocent in that the primary rеason respondent departed
the United States was for the purpose of violating the immigration
law. In a case involving a similar factual situаtion, the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals in
Solis Davila v. INS,
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.