Interim Decision Number 1784 MATTER OF VALSAMAKIS. In Visa Petition Proceedings. A-17956472.Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board August 30, 1967. Petitioner, an adult naturalized citizen, who was admitted for permanent residence in 1951 in nonquota status as an eligible displaced Greek orphan under section 2(e) […]
Category: U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals Opinions
IN THE MATTER OF WONG, 16 IN Dec. 646 (BIA 1978)
Interim Decision Number 2682 MATTER OF WONG. In Visa Petition Proceedings. A-21323067 A-21323068Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board December 6, 1978. (1) Under the provisions of Article 15 of the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China, all children born in China are legitimate […]
IN RE MIGUEL GADDA, 23 IN Dec. 645 (BIA 2003)
Interim Decision Number 3496 In re Miguel GADDA, Attorney. File D2000-048Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided as amended on September 25, 2003[1] Decided September 25, 2003 [1] On our own motion, we amend the July 8, 2003, order in this case. The amended order makes editorial changes […]
IN THE MATTER OF W—-, 1 IN Dec. 558 (BIA 1943)
IN THE MATTER OF W—-. IN EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS. 56143/268Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by the Board October 19, 1943. Citizenship — Section 1993, Revised Statutes — Children born abroad of citizen parent — Section 401 (b) and (c), section 403 (a), and section 323, Nationality Act […]
IN THE MATTER OF MOORE, 13 IN Dec. 711 (BIA 1971)
Interim Decision Number 2086 MATTER OF MOORE. In Exclusion Proceedings. A-17797587Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board July 12, 1971, As amended December 9, 1971 (1) Pursuant to section 291 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the burden of proof is upon a commuter applicant for […]
IN THE MATTER OF PLANE “F-BHSQ”, 9 IN Dec. 595 (BIA 1962)
MATTER OF PLANE “F-BHSQ”. In FINE Proceedings. NYC-10/52.232.Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board March 1, 1962. Fine — Section 273(a) — Waiver of documents or parole not a defense to liability. The grant of a waiver of documents or parole to an applicant for temporary […]
IN THE MATTER OF KUMAR, 17 IN Dec. 315 (BIA 1980)
Interim Decision Number 2777 MATTER OF KUMAR. In Deportation Proceedings. A-21329561Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board February 20, 1980 (1) Mere fact that an investor filed an adjustment of status application prior to October 7, 1976, does not result in his being thereafter entitled to […]
IN THE MATTER OF OPFERKUCH, 17 IN Dec. 158 (BIA 1979)
Interim Decision Number 2739 MATTER OF OPFERKUCH. In Exclusion Proceedings. A-22953714Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board April 11, 1979 A salaried “project specialist” who plans to enter the United States three to six times during a period of 18 months to serve as a liaison […]
IN THE MATTER OF QUINTERO, 18 IN Dec. 348 (BIA 1982)
Interim Decision Number 2930 MATTER OF QUINTERO. In Deportation Proceedings. A-24229344Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board November 16, 1982 (1) Deferred action status, granted pursuant to Operations Instructions 103.1(a)(1)(ii), is a matter of the District Director’s prosecutorial discretion and, therefore, neither the immigration judge nor […]
IN THE MATTER OF RAMIREZ, 13 IN Dec. 584 (BIA 1970)
Interim Decision Number 2050 MATTER OF RAMIREZ. In Visa Petition Proceedings. A-19125723Board of Immigration Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review U.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board June 26, 1970 Since there is no substantial evidence that the Civil Code of the State of Tamaulipas, Mexico, is controlling with respect to beneficiary’s common-law relationship in […]