Conclusions of Law: Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded: (1) That under section 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, respondent is subject to deportation on the ground that she became a public charge within 5 years after her entry into the United States from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen subsequent thereto; (2) That under sections 3 and 19 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, the respondent is not subject to deportation on the ground that she was a person of constitutional psychopathic inferiority at the time of entry into the United States; (3) That under section 20 of the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, the respondent is deportable to Canada, if practicable, otherwise to the United Kingdom, at Government expense. Other Factors: Judicial notice is taken of the fact that the record contains information that Canada has denied consent for the alien's return to that country. Order: It is ordered that the alien be deported to the United Kingdom at Government expense on the first charge as stated in the warrant of arrest. It is further ordered, That the alien be provided with special care and attention during the ocean voyage. IN THE MATTER OF M— In DEPORTATION Proceedings A-1138554 Decided by Board July 31, 1946 Approved by Attorney General August 19, 1946 Seventh proviso relief as to criminal ground-Advance exercise thereof, where voluntary departure granted, but preexamination denied-Section 3 and section 19 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended-Discretion-Conditions. An alien deportable on a criminal ground specified under the provisions of section 19 (d) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, nevertheless may be granted both voluntary departure and seventh proviso relief (sec. 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917), under conditions that may be prescribed (See 1, I. & N. Dec. 204), even though the privilege of preexamination be denied because of the exhausted condition of the applicable quota. CHARGES: Warrant: Act of 1924-Visa procured by fraud and misrepresentation. Act of 1917-Not a nonquota immigrant as specified in visa. BEFORE THE BOARD Discussion: Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to the alien's deportability proposed by the Presiding Inspector, as approved by the Commissioner on April 25, 1946, are hereby adopted. The Presiding Inspector has recommended that this alien be granted voluntary departure and preexamination and that the seventh proviso be exercised with respect to the admission of the crime of perjury in connection with the application before an American consul for an immigration visa in 1926. The District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service has also recommended voluntary departure and preexamination with exercise of the seventh proviso. The Commissioner has recommended that the request for discretionary relief be denied and that an order of deportation be entered. In his opinion, the Commissioner states that, since the alien is deportable under one of the grounds contained in section 19 (d) of the act of 1917, as amended, he will not be accorded discretionary relief under the provision of section 19 (c) of the act of 1917. Notwithstanding this alien's deportability, under the principle of the B—— decision, V-292720, decided March 27, 1942 [Attorney General], the alien may be granted the privilege of voluntary departure with exercise of the seventh proviso. This alien has resided in the United States since 1922, except for a temporary absence of a few months, and has an unblemished record during that period. He has family ties in this country consisting of a legally resident alien wife and two minor citizen children; has been steadily employed by the same company for the past 5 years; owns his own home and other property, and has assets totaling over $6,500. Upon full review of the record, we believe that the seventh proviso should be exercised in this case. However, in view of the present demand upon the Greek quota, we shall not authorize preexamination. We shall authorize exercise of the seventh proviso, provided that, at the time of making application for exercise of this privilege, the alien is able to meet the requirements of unrelinquished domicile for the 7-year period. Order: It is ordered that the request for suspension of deportation and for preexamination be denied. It is further ordered, That an order of deportation not be entered at this time but that the alien be required to depart from the United States without expense to the Government, to any country of his choice within 6 months after notification of decision conditioned upon arrangements being made with the local immigration office for verification of departure. It is further ordered, That if the alien applies for admission after departure under the outstanding order, and is in possession of proper documents, that he be admitted pursuant to the authority contained in the seventh proviso to section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended, if otherwise admissible than as one who admits the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, to wit, perjury before an American consul in 1926; Provided, however That at the time of application he meets the requirements of unrelinquished domicile for the 7-year period, and has continued to be a person of good moral character. As the order involves the exercise of the seventh proviso to section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917, in accordance with section 90.12, title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, the Board refers the case to the Attorney General for review of its decision. BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The decision and order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dated July 31, 1946, are hereby approved. IN THE MATTER OF G In DEPORTATION Proceedings A-4190693 (56075/602) Decided by Board August 6, 1946 Decided by Attorney General August 14, 1946 Seventh proviso relief-Section 3 of Immigration Act of 1917-Discretion. Though an alien carried perjury into Court in 1933 in connection with a petition for naturalization, discretionary relief may be granted under the seventh proviso to section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (together with the privileges of voluntary departure and preexamination), where the record discloses such perjury was the result of improper advice of counsel and there are factors deserving of favorable consideration. CHARGES: Warrant: Act of 1924-Immigrant without immigration visa. Lodged: Act of 1917—Admits commission of crime prior to entry; Perjury and Perjury. BEFORE THE BOARD Upon consideration of the entire record, the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the presiding inspector, as approved by the Commissioner on May 22, 1946, are hereby adopted. Discussion: The respondents are mother and daughter. The adult respondent is a native and citizen of the Netherlands, who first entered the United States, November 26, 1920, as a stewardess on the S. S. Ryndam and deserted. In 1921 she married one P— G– an alien, in New York. There is one native-born citizen child of this union. She lived with G― until 1926 when, without termination of her marriage, she departed to Canada with one O—— S——. She lived with S- as man and wife and from this adulterous relationship the minor respondent was born in Canada on February 10, 1927. On April 29, 1927, she returned to the United States, accompanied by her native-born citizen son and her 3-month-old Canadian-born daughter. She testified that on that occasion she was admitted as a returning resident on presentation of her first papers, marriage certificate, and birth certificates of both children. Upon her return to the United States she resumed her relation with S and continued to live with him until 1934. The adult respondent testified that in 1933 she obtained a certificate of registry and was admitted to citizenship on June 27, 1933. In 1935 she obtained an American passport for herself and two children, claiming that both were American-born. Thereafter she and her two children departed for Holland in April or May of 1935, returning to the United States December 6, 1936. On that occasion they were all admitted as United States citizens. In connection with respondent's certificate of naturalization and American passport, she admits having committed perjury in that she made false statements relative to the birth of her daughter, her residence in the United States, and that she was residing with her husband when in fact she had not lived with him since 1926. In connection with the false statements she testified that an unscrupulous attorney had advised her to state that she had resided continuously in the United States since 1920. She also testified that the other false statements mentioned above were made as the result of the advice of the same attorney. In connection with her admission of the commission of perjury, she stated that she did not know at the time that it constituted perjury but knew it now. On January 26, 1940, the adult respondent's naturalization was cancelled on the ground that it had been fraudulently and illegally procured. The minor respondent testified that she is 17 years of age, a native of Canada, subject of Great Britain; that she last entered the United States with her mother in 1936; that she previously entered the United States in 1927 at the age of 3 months; that she resided in the United States from that date until 1935 when she visited Holland; that she has lived with her mother since birth; that her father, OSwas a Swedish subject at the time of her birth; that she is a highschool student and employed after school as a typist earning $11.50 per week; that she has never been charged with any violation of law or misconduct and has no independent assets other than three $25 war bonds purchased by her mother. The adult respondent's citizen son is in the United States Navy. She is employed as a chambermaid and earns $25 a week. Total assets for herself and daughter are approximately $1,900. The record indicates that the adult respondent donated three pints of blood to the Red Cross, purchased war bonds in the amount of $400, and assisted at the Red Cross and USO during the war. Both respondents have satisfactorily established that they have been persons of good moral character for the preceding 5 years. An independent character investigation conducted by the Service proved wholly satisfactory to the respondents. The evidence of record indicates that the adult respondent was ill advised in connection with her naturalization proceedings. However, in view of her long residence in the United States; her endeavor to aid in the war efforts of the United States, and the fact that she has a |