Matter of Vorrias (Board decision, February 9, 1967)

Plain-English summary

A Greek national had remained in the United States beyond the period allowed for his nonimmigrant crewman admission. The Board had previously granted him voluntary departure after he appealed a deportation order. He then sought to reopen the case, arguing that the Supreme Court's Woodby decision required stronger proof of deportability. The Board found that deportability was not the disputed issue in his case and that Woodby did not govern the discretionary relief at issue. It denied reopening; the earlier grant of voluntary departure remained.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(a)(2); Woodby v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U.S. 276 (1966).
• Outcome: Motion to reopen and reconsider denied; prior voluntary departure grant remained.
• Key point: The Woodby burden of proof concerns deportability, not the grant of discretionary relief.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #1699

MATTER OF VORRIAS

In Deportation Proceedings
A-15154704
Decided by Board February 9, 1967
As discretionary relief is the only issue in respondent's case, motion to reopen de- portation proceedings predicated on Woodby v. Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Service, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), is denied since the Woodby standard is applicable solely to the question of deportability and has no bearing on the matter of discretionary relief. CHARGE:

Order : Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (2) ]—Nonimmi- grant crewman—Remained longer.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT : ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Barrett O'Hara, II, Esquire
Irving A. Appleman
33 South Clark Street
Appellate Trial Attorney
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(Memorandum of law filed)

This case has previously been before us and on September 21, 1966, we sustained the respondent's appeal from an order of the special inquiry officer denying him the privilege of voluntary departure and ordering his deportation from the United States to Greece on the charge contained in the order to show cause. The Board was persuaded that the respondent's application for voluntary departure was of suf- ficient merit and granted him such privilege. In view thereof, a full recital of the facts is not deemed necessary herein. A motion to reopen and reconsider these proceedings has been sub- mitted by counsel urging that in light of the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Woodby v. Immigration and Nat- uralization Service, 17 L.ed. 2d 362 (December 12, 1966), the Gov- ernment has not met its burden of proof in the instant case requiring that it must "establish the facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence." Thus, counsel for the respond- ent moved that the proceedings in this case be terminated. In a Memorandum of Law, the Service outlined the respondent's own testimony of record conceding that he was an alien; that he was

84
 Interim Decision #1699 a native and citizen of Greece; that he was admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant crewman; and that he remained beyond the period of time permitted for his stay in the United States; and other testimony as to the manner and circumstances of his entry, and as to his conduct following entry. The Service contended, however, that since it is clear from the record that the only issue on which there was any controversy was that of discretionary relief, and the record makes it abundantly clear under any burden of proof that the re- spondent is in fact deportable, it fails to see any relevancy between the instant case and the authority relied upon by counsel for the re- spondent. Also, although the respondent was granted the maximum relief available to him in the circumstances of this case, to wit, vol- untary departure, nevertheless, "he seems bent on a determined effort to protract his legal stay in the United States." The Service re- quested that the instant motion be denied. In the Woodby case, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Gov- ernment has the burden of proving the facts supporting deportability by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. The decision, however, applied solely to the question of deportability and has no bearing on the matter of discretionary relief, the only issue herein. An alien has the burden of demonstrating that he is worthy of such relief. The only exercise of discretion available to the Board in the circumstances of this case was voluntary departure and the respondent's application for this privilege was granted by our earlier decision herein. We are persuaded, therefore, from our review of this entire matter that the contentions of respondent are without merit. Accordingly, the motion of the respondent to reopen this matter is hereby denied. ORDER: It is ordered that the motion be and the same is hereby denied.

85