MATTER OF WONG
A-14322774
In Deportation Proceedings
Decided by Board June 11, 1971
Interim Decision #2083 | 13 I. & N. Dec. 701
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—Section 241 (a) (2) [
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:
David Carliner, Esquire
Pennsylvania Building
Washington, D.C. 20004
ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
R. A. Vielhaber
Appellate Trial Attorney
The respondent, a native of China, has been found deportable under the provisions of section 241 (a) (2) of the
The Immigration Service has submitted a memorandum in opposition to the grant of the motion. The special inquiry officer in his decision of October 3, 1969 concludes that he has no authority to terminate the deportation proceedings to permit the respondent‘s induction into the armed forces of the United States. The respondent appeals from his decision and order. We will affirm the decision and order of the special inquiry officer.
Counsel argues that the rationale of our decision in Matter of Hroncich, 11 I. & N. Dec. 193 (BIA, 1961 and 1963), applies to an alien who has been ordered inducted into the armed forces of the United States. We do not agree. Unlike the respondent, Hroncich was eligible for naturalization by reason of his military service and honorable discharge. The only bar at that time was section 318 of the
Counsel argues that the Board‘s decision in Matter of Vizcarra-Delgadillo, Interim Decision No. 1917 (BIA, 1968), provides the special inquiry officer with ample authority to terminate the deportation proceedings if they have been “improvidently begun.” Our decision in Vizcarra-Delgadillo stands for the proposition that pursuant to
As we recently stated in Matter of Geronimo, Interim Decision No. 2077 (BIA, 1971):
. . . It is within the District Director‘s prosecutive discretion whether to institute deportation proceedings against a deportable alien or temporarily to withhold such proceedings. Where such proceedings have been begun, it is not the province of the special inquiry officer (or of this Board, on appeal) to review the wisdom of the District Director‘s action in starting the proceedings, but to determine whether the deportation charge is sustained by the requisite evidence. . . .
Counsel also argues that the purpose of section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, namely, to encourage military service on the part of deportable aliens who do not have a lawful permanent residence, would be frustrated if sole discretion were placed in the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to determine whether such alien should be permitted to serve in the armed forces. We find no provision in the im-
ORDER: It is directed that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.
