Matter of Lim (Board decision, January 23, 1963)

Matter of Lim (BIA ID 1369): Coast Guard arrival did not meet adjustment entry requirement

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
ID 1369, A-12975895
Decided
January 23, 1963
Outcome
Affirmed
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-15
Cited standards

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 1963, 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 1963
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 Regional Commissioner decision
The Regional Commissioner denied the certified application in the order below. This published precedent records a final Service decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 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

A Philippine citizen serving in the U.S. Coast Guard sought adjustment to permanent resident status. He had arrived aboard a Coast Guard vessel without immigration inspection, and the record showed no earlier entry at which he was inspected and admitted or paroled. His marriage to a U.S. citizen and approved nonquota petition did not satisfy that entry requirement. The Regional Commissioner denied the adjustment application on certification from the district director.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: Immigration and Nationality Act § 245.
  • Outcome: Adjustment of status application denied.
  • Key point: Section 245 required inspection and admission or parole into the United States, which the applicant's Coast Guard arrival did not supply.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #1369

MATTER OF LIM

In SECTION 245 Proceedings

A-12975895

Decided by Regional Commissioner January 23, 1963

An alien who entered this country as a member of the United States Coast Guard is statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status under section 245, Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, because he was not inspected, admitted, or paroled into the United States.

This case has been certified to me by the District Director at Portland, Oregon, for review of his decision denying the application under section 245 of the I. & N. Act, as amended.

The record relates to a 23-year-old male, native and citizen of the Philippines. He is presently married to a United States citizen and a petition according him nonquota status under section 101(a)(27)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act was approved June 26, 1962.

He last arrived in the United States on February 18, 1959, as a member of the United States Coast Guard on the USNS "General Barret". On the occasion of this arrival, he was not inspected by an Immigration officer. The record does not disclose any prior entries where the applicant was inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. On June 22, 1959, he appeared at the Service office in San Francisco, California, and was registered and fingerprinted as an alien and was issued Form I-94 as evidence thereof. His enlistment in the United States Coast Guard expires on June 22, 1963.

One of the requisites for adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident is that the applicant be inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States. The applicant has not met this requirement. Accordingly, the application must be denied and the decision of the District Director is proper.

ORDER: It is ordered that the application be and the same is hereby denied.

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