A-7248531
Decided by Board November 23, 1949
Quota preference status — Skilled agriculturist — Section 6 (a) (1) (B) of the Immigration Act of 1924 — When right to preference established — Necessity of continuance of employment as such after arrival.
An alien was issued a first preference quota immigration visa under section 6 (a) (1) (B) of the Immigration Act of 1924 and this preference was established as of the date the United States consul recorded the alien as a preference applicant on the basis of satisfactory evidence submitted to the consul that the alien was a skilled agriculturist and the evidence presented convinced the consul that the alien intended in good faith to engage in agriculture after his arrival in the United States; the regulations do not require that the alien continue such employment after arrival here, but only that we have a bona fide intention of engaging in agricultural work after arrival.
EXCLUDED BY BOARD OF SPECIAL INQUIRY:
Act of 1924 — Not preference quota immigrant as specified in visa.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This case presents an appeal from an order entered by the Assistant Commissioner on September 16, 1949, which affirms the appellant's exclusion by a Board of Special Inquiry held at Ellis Island, New York, N.Y., on August 29, 1949.
The record relates to a native and citizen of Norway, 15 years of age, who arrived in the United States at New York, N.Y., on August 26, 1949. She presented and surrendered immigration visa No. 583, issued under the provisions of section 6 (a) (1), act of 1924, by the United States consul, Bergen, Norway, on July 26, 1949. She presented a Norwegian passport valid until June 26, 1951. The appellant was coming to the United States to join her father who had been admitted to this country in October 1948 under the provisions of section 6 (a) (1) (B). The record shows that the appellant's father paid for her passage to the United States.
The appellant's father was issued a preference-quota visa on the basis of his being a person skilled in agriculture. The record shows that the father of the appellant abandoned his calling as a person skilled in agriculture at the end of May 1949 and since that time he has been employed as a fisherman at New Bedford, Mass. The record shows that the appellant was coming to the United States to join her father, although her immediate destination in the United States was the home of her uncle located at 280 Fourteenth Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
The Assistant Commissioner in his order of September 16, 1949, adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached by the Board of Special Inquiry and affirmed the appellant's exclusion under section 13 (a) (4) of the Immigration Act of 1924 in that she was an immigrant who was not a first-preference quota immigrant as specified in her immigration visa. This Board, after a careful study of the record, is of the opinion that the appellant is admissible to the United States under section 13 (a) of the Immigration Act of 1924, as amended.
Section 6 (a) (1) of the Immigration Act of 1924 provides as follows:
Immigration visas to quota immigrants shall be issued in each fiscal year as follows:
(1) Fifty per centum of the quota of each nationality for such year shall be made available in such year for the issuance of immigration visas to the following classes of immigrants, without priority of preference as between such classes:
(a) Quota immigrants who are the fathers or the mothers of citizens of the United States who are 21 years of age or over, or who are the husbands of citizens of the United States by marriages occurring on or after January 1, 1948; and
(b) In the case of any nationality the quota for which is 300 or more, quota immigrants who are skilled in agriculture, and the wives, and the dependent children under the age of 18 years, of such immigrants skilled in agriculture, if accompanying or following to join them.
Notes 156, 157, and 158 of Visa Supplement A of the Foreign Service Regulations, Notes to Section XXII-1 (relating to the admission of aliens into the United States), deal with first-preference categories. Note 157 relates to citizens' relatives (sec. 6 (a) (1) (A)). Note 158, which relates to skilled agriculturists, states:
The right of skilled agriculturists to preference shall be considered to have been established as of the date the consul records the alien as a preference applicant on the basis of the alien's submission of satisfactory evidence that the alien is a skilled agriculturist.
* * * * * * *
Consuls should require convincing evidence that applicants have the bona fide intention of engaging in agricultural work after arrival in the United States. * * *
Section 425.65 of the Immigration Manual states that quota immigrants * * * who are skilled in agriculture, and their wives and dependent children under 18 years of age, if accompanying or following to join them, are given preference in the issuance of immigration visas to the first 50 percent of the quota * * *. The alien must in good faith intend to engage in agricultural work after his arrival in the United States.
Section 165.2, of Title 8, C.F.R. pertains to the date of establishment of a nonquota or preference quota status. In this section of the regulations no reference is made to section 6 (a) (1) (B) of the Immigration Act of 1924.
The record establishes that the father of the appellant was issued a first-preference quota immigration visa under the provisions of section 6 (a) (1) (b) of the Immigration Act of 1924 and that his preference was established as of the date that the consul recorded the alien as a preference applicant on the basis of his submission of satisfactory evidence to the consul that he was a skilled agriculturist and on the presentation of convincing evidence that he intended to engage in agriculture after his arrival in the United States. The statute does not say, nor is there any mention made in the regulations which implement the statute, that an alien, after establishing his preference on the basis of being a skilled agriculturist, must continue that employment after his arrival in the United States. The regulations provide only that he must have a bona fide intention of engaging in agricultural work after arrival.
On the basis of the evidence contained in the record, we find that the subject hereof is the minor daughter of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States, who, at the time he procured his visa, was found to be a skilled agriculturist by the United States consul in Norway, and that the appellant is following to join him and is, therefore, admissible to the United States under the provisions of section 13 (a) (4) of the Immigration Act of 1924. The appeal will be sustained.
Order: It is ordered that the appeal be sustained; and
It is further ordered, That the alien be admitted to the United States for permanent residence.