ESCALANTE

                                               Interim Decision #1961




                        MATTER OF ESCALANTE

                      In Deportation Proceedings
                                  A-18437984
                                  A-11944377
                   Decided by' Board April 18, 1969
In the absence of supporting evidence, as required by regulations (8 CFR
  103.5), a motion to reopen deportation proceedings is denied.
CHARGE:
  Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (9))—After admission as a nonimmigrant under section
                       101 (a) (16) of raid Act, failed to comply with the
                       conditions of the nonimmigrant status under
                      which admitted (temporary visitor as to both).
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:                      ON BEHALF or SFAVICE:
  John F. Sheffield, Esquire                     Sam 1. Feldman
  412 West Sixth Street                          Trial Attorney
  Los Angeles, California 90014                  (Brief filed)
  (Brief filed)

   This is an appeal from the decision of the special inquiry
officer, rendered on December 9, 1968, denying the respondents'
motion to reopen proceedings. The respondents are man and wife,
natives and citizens of Ecuador. The female respondent last entered the United States at Los Angeles, California on or about
February 20, 1968, as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure authorized to remain until November 20, 1968. The male respondent
entered the United States at Los Angeles, California on or about
March 14, 1968, as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure authorized to remain until October 12, 1968. Both respondents were
charged with accepting employment in the United States. Deportability is conceded and the respondents were granted the privilege of voluntary departure. Failing to depart as required, warrants of deportation were issued on December 4, 1968.
  The motion to reopen proceedings is grounded on the fact that
the female respondent had previously entered the United States
                                    223
 Interim Decision #I961
 on July 20, 1959 as a permanent resident. New proceediiigs are
 requested for the purpose of applying for waivers under sections
 211(b) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The
 motion recites that the female respondent resided in the United
 States from 1959 until she returned to Ecuador in 1964 to be
 with her ailing mother. While in Ecuador, the female respondent
 became ill and, as a result, her return to the United States was
 delayed beyond the period of time when her Form 1-151 would
 have permitted her reentry.
    The Service brief in opposition to the motion to reopen concedes that the female respondent was admitted as a permanent
 resident on July 20, 1959. The Service brief states that the female
 respondent then returned to Ecuador in December 1963, and remained there until December 1966. On December 19, 1966, the
 American Consulate General at Guayaquil, Ecuador returned the
 female respondent's alien registration card (Form I-151) to the
Immigration and Naturalization Service in Los Angeles, California, after concluding that she had abandoned her residence. The
 Service argues that the female respondent, having subsequently
entered the United States on December 20, 1966, and February
20, 1968 as a nonimmigrant visitor, is not entitled to the relief
sought in her motion to reopen.
   We have reviewed the evidence of record including the briefs
on appeal and conclude that the motion to reopen should be denied. As the Service notes, the regulations provide that a motion
to reopen shall state new facts to be proved at the reopened hearing and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material, 8 CFR 103.5. There is no evidence to support the female
respondent's motion showing that she qualifies for relief under
section 211 (b) or 212(c). A mere assertion of a previous status
as a permanent resident is insufficient to order these proceedings
reopened for the purpose of applying for relief under sections
211(b) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The
respondent is required to state additionally that she meets the
statutory waiver requirement as to residence. Her motion fails to
show this and, therefore, we affirm the decision of the special inquiry officer.
   ORDER: It is ordered that the appeals be and the same are
hereby dismissed.




                               224