Suspension of deportation — Section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended — Good moral character — Discretion.
1. "Good moral character" (which is not synonymous with moral excellence) has been defined by the courts to be that which measures up to the standard of average citizens of the community in which the alien lives.
2. An alien is not barred from establishing the good moral character required under the provisions of section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, (a) because of failure to support minor children after the wife left him and took the children with her, (b) or because he drank intoxicating liquor (only arrest for drunkenness 1927), where he conducted himself "quietly," worked regularly, has been self-supporting in the past.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa.
Act of 1917 — Entered without inspection — by false and misleading statements.
Lodged: Act of 1918 — No passport.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: The appellant, a 47-year-old male, native and citizen of Mexico, last entered the United States on August 6, 1946, at El Paso, Tex. He claims that he has lived in the United States since October 1914. His original arrival cannot be officially verified. It was his intention at the time of his last entry to remain permanently. He was not then in possession of an immigration visa, or a passport or other document in lieu thereof showing his origin and identity. The Assistant Commissioner denied appellant's application for suspension of deportation and ordered that he be deported to Mexico at Government expense on the following charges: that he had no immigration visa, that he had no passport and that he entered without inspection by making false and misleading statements.
Appellant has lived in the United States since he was about 14 years of age and testified that he had never left the United States until August 5, 1946. He has a wife from whom he is divorced and three daughters who are grown. They are not dependent on him, and he has contributed very little over the years to their support. Testimony of witnesses at the hearings and the independent character investigation prove that appellant is an amiable, popular person but that he is frequently drunk. It was this weakness which led to his present difficulties. At about 11 p.m. the night of August 5, 1946, he thought he was going home in El Paso, Tex., but he got on the wrong streetcar. Instead of taking him to his home, the streetcar carried him over the border into Mexico. There was an immigrant inspector on the car who looked at his papers but, according to his testimony, said nothing to him. Apparently he stayed on the same streetcar and when it came back the inspector on the Santa Fe Street Bridge would not let him enter the United States. He went back to Juarez and stayed until 12:30 a.m. and returned to the bridge. There was a different inspector by that time. Appellant said that he was an American citizen, showed the inspector his draft and Social Security cards and was allowed to pass. During the November 18, 1946 hearing the Presiding Inspector said to appellant, "Do you admit that you last gained entry into the United States by means of false and misleading statements, in that you told the Immigrant Inspector that you were an American citizen, whereas, as a matter of fact you were and are a citizen of Mexico?" Appellant answered, "No; I just meant him to think I lived here."
On January 15, 1927, appellant was found guilty in the United States District Court of violating the Tariff Act and the National Prohibition Act in that he had unlawfully, wilfully, etc., imported into the United States certain liquors, etc. He was sentenced to serve 5 months in the county jail in El Paso.
Subsection (c) of section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, (said amendment being known as "Public Law 863," approved and of effect on July 1, 1948) provides:
(Irrelevant portion of section omitted.)
In the case of any alien * * * who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding 5 years, the Attorney General may * * * suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization * * * if he finds * * * that such alien has resided continuously in the United States for 7 years or more and is residing in the United States upon the effective date of this act.
The opinion of the Assistant Commissioner found that appellant had failed to prove good moral character because (1) he had failed to support his United States citizen minor child, (2) he indulged excessively in intoxicating liquor and (3) he is (apparently) without funds.
The Presiding Inspector found that appellant has proved good moral character during the preceding 5 years, and it is the opinion of this Board that that was a proper finding.
(1) Failure to support a minor child does not prevent a finding of good moral character. In the instant case the appellant's wife left the appellant and took the children with her. There was no testimony that he had failed to support his family when they lived with him. In Matter of M---- 56152/402 (Mar. 31, 1944), this Board held that the fact that the alien is forced by a court order to support his wife and children does not preclude a finding that he is of good moral character. The fact that he has failed to support his family since they left him is no reason to refuse him relief.
(2) "Good moral character" has been defined by the courts to be that which measures up to the standard of average citizens of the community in which the alien lives. In re Petition of De Leo, 75 Fed. Supp. 896 (W.D. Pa., 1948). Also Petitions of Rudder, et al., 159 F. (2d) 695 (C.C.A. 2d) This Board has held that "good moral character" is not synonymous with moral excellence Matter of B---- 56130/885 (June 15, 1947); Matter of M---- 56152/402 (Mar. 31, 1944). This Board held in Matter of T---- 55910/216 (Sept. 4, 1941) that an arrest for drunkenness would not bar a finding of good moral character. All the evidence was to the effect that appellant in the instant case was "jovial" and "a good man" and "quiet," even when drunk. Except for the one arrest in 1927 and his present difficulties having to do with his illegal entry in 1946, he has no criminal record.
(3) There is nothing in the record, so far as we have been able to discover, to show that appellant is without funds, except his statement that the last time his minor daughter visited him he "gave her $5, which was all the money I had." The record does show that he has never been on relief at any time during the more than 20 years he has lived in this country. His employment record shows that he has worked most of the time. He has been self-supporting in the past; there is no reason to believe that he will not be self-supporting in the future.
It is the opinion of this Board that appellant is entitled to suspension of deportation under Public Law 863 set forth above because he has been in this country for more than seven years, has proved good moral character for the preceding 5 years, and because he is not otherwise ineligible for relief.
Order: It is ordered that deportation of the alien be suspended under the provisions of section 19 (c) (2) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended.
It is further ordered that if Congress takes affirmative and favorable action on the order granting suspension of deportation, and when the required fee is paid, proceedings be canceled.