Petitioner relies upon a series of Board decisions which hold that discretionary relief may be available in deportation proceedings. Matter of S----, 6 IN Dec. 393 (1954); Matter of G---- A----, 7 IN Dec. 274 (1956); Matter of Smith, 11 IN Dec. 324 (1965); Matter of Eng, 12 IN Dec. 855 (1968). These decisions are not in point.

However, it was the view of the Immigration Service that Castillo-Godoy was not eligible for the benefits of section 1251(f) because he was not "otherwise admissible", being inadmissible under section 1182(a) (14). Applying definitions enunciated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (Matter of Eng, 12 IN Dec. 855), the Court of Appeals in Godoy v. Rosenberg, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service held that the ground of inadmissibility under section 1182(a) (14) was not qualitative but was quantitative or numerical and, therefore, within the meaning of section 1251(f), and did not result in the alien becoming otherwise inadmissible. The court said if the alien is a parent of a United States citizen, under the Errico and Scott doctrine, he would be eligible for section 1251(f) relief. (See also Becerra Monje v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 418 F.2d 108 (C.A. 9, 1969).)