Id. at 13. Relying on Matter of Sourbis, 11 I N Dec. 335 (1965), he ruled that it was not necessary for him to determine whether the purpose for which she was admitted to the United States had been accomplished or whether she was merely attempting to prolong her stay indefinitely, because he did "not have jurisdiction to make any determination as to the propriety of the District Director's decision." App. at 9.

Before we could properly review this contention on appeal, a factual record would have to be developed. Ghorbani sought to introduce facts supporting this charge at the deportation hearing, but the immigration judge refused to permit it, on the ground he had no authority to review the discretionary decisions of the District Director. The BIA agreed that no such authority existed, citing Matter of Halabi, 15 IN Dec. 105 (BIA 1974), and Matter of Geronimo, 13 IN Dec. 680 (BIA 1971). It concluded that it and the immigration judge are not authorized to pass on certain matters in which the Attorney General has conferred authority on District Directors. Matter of Yazdani, 17 IN Dec. 626 (BIA 1981) citing Matter of Teberen, 15 IN Dec. 689 (BIA 1976); Matter of Hosseinpour, 15 IN Dec. 191 (BIA 1975), aff'd mem., 520 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1975); Matter of Gallares, 14 IN Dec. 250 (BIA 1972); Matter of Sourbis, 11 IN Dec. 335 (BIA 1965). See 1A Gordon and Rosenfeld, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 5.7b p. 5-84 and 1, § 1.10c, p. 1-65 — 69 (1982).

" See Matter of Sourbis, 11 I. N.Dec. 335 (BIA 1965). 8 C.F.R. § 214.