Matter of F—— (Board decision, January 26, 1960)

Matter of F—— (BIA ID 1054): rabbi's overseas teaching preserved residence

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
ID 1054, A-8725696
Decided
January 26, 1960
Outcome
Affirmed
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-18

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 1960, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1960
The immigration statutes and regulations may have been amended, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Final INS decision
The District Director granted the rabbi's application to preserve residence for naturalization, and the Assistant Commissioner approved the decision on March 7, 1960. This published precedent records a final Service decision on the application. It is not an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals; the Board-order finality rule in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(7) does not govern it.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BIA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: BIA released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (justice.gov)

Plain-English summary

An ordained rabbi taught at a seminary in Israel from July 1955 to July 1956 and applied to preserve his U.S. residence for naturalization. A New York corporation that raised funds for the seminary sent him abroad and paid him. The District Director held that the corporation was not a religious organization, but that section 317 did not require a minister to be employed by one. Because the rabbi taught religion abroad and met the other statutory conditions, the Director granted the application. The Assistant Commissioner approved the decision.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authorities: Immigration and Nationality Act §§ 245, 317.
  • Outcome: Application to preserve residence for naturalization granted and approved.
  • Key point: A minister's qualifying overseas work could preserve residence even when a private corporation sent and paid him.

Full text (BIA official public release)

MATTER OF F——

Application to Preserve Residence
A-8725696
Decided by District Director January 26, 1960
Approved by Assistant Commissioner March 7, 1960

Residence for naturalization—Clergyman sent abroad by private corporation
eligible for section 317 benefits.
An ordained rabbi may qualify for the benefits of section 317 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to cover his absence from the United States while teaching at a rabbinical seminary even though he was sent abroad by, and receives compensation from, a private corporation which is not a religious organization.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR

Discussion: The applicant submitted an application on Form
N-470 dated July 29, 1959, requesting the benefits of section 317 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1428, to cover his
absence from the United States from July 12, 1955, to July 19, 1956,
alleging that he is a duly ordained rabbi and that during that period he was employed by Heichal Hatalmud, a New York organization, to lecture in the Heichal Hatalmud Seminary in Israel. The records of this Service show that the applicant was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence on August 18, 1954, under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255. The evidence of record establishes that the applicant is a rabbi and the employer organization is a New York membership corporation established to raise funds in the United States for the support of a rabbinical seminary, known as Heichal Hatalmud, located at Tel Aviv, Israel. It was at this rabbinical seminary that the applicant lectured to rabbinical students during his absence from the United States from July 12, 1955, to July 19, 1956. The question involved is whether the statute requires that a minister or priest be employed by a religious organization in order to qualify for the benefits of section 317. The record shows that subject was employed by a corporation engaged solely in raising funds in the United States to support a rabbinical seminary in Israel. Such fund raising, although for a religious purpose, does not make the corporation a religious organization. Subject cannot, therefore, be considered as having been engaged by a religious organization for the purposes of section 317. This conclusion does not, however, disqualify him from the benefits of section 317. The statute contemplates two categories of persons eligible for its benefits, namely, ministers and priests on the one hand, and missionaries, brothers, sisters and nuns on the other. The qualifying conditions differ as to each category. Those in the second category are persons who are engaged by a religious denomination or mission organization to serve abroad in their respective capacities. This prerequisite has no applicability to the first class. All that is required of the minister or priest is that he be a person authorized to perform ministerial or priestly functions of a religious denomination, and that he be abroad for that very purpose. Common to both categories is the requirement that the denomination or organization have a bona fide organization within the United States. Subject is an ordained rabbi. As such, he is authorized to perform the ministerial functions of the Jewish religion. No proof is required to recognize that the Jewish religion has a bona fide organization within the United States. Likewise, no proof is required that the teaching of religion to rabbinical students is inherent in the ministerial functions of the religious denomination. The subject, therefore, meets the requirements of section 317. The fact that he was sent abroad by a private corporation which is not a religious organization and that he receives his compensation from such corporation is not material. Order: It is ordered that J——F—— be granted the benefits of section 317 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to cover his absence from the United States from July 12, 1955, to July 19, 1956.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace