MURAT-KHAN

                                                 Interim Decision #2237




                        MAIThR OF MURAT-KHAN

                       In Deportation Proceedings

                                 A-20135179

                   Decided by Board August 27, .1973
(1) While penal confinement is a significant factor in determining whether a
   nonimmigrant's criminal conduct constitutes a violation of nonimmigrant
   status within the meaning of section 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a likewise significant factor is whether the criminal conduct is
   meaningfully disruptive of the purpose for which the nonimmigrant was
   admitted.
(2) A nonimmigrant student's conviction for the offense of residing where drug
   laws are violated and resultant 20-day incarceration did not constitute a
  failure to maintain nonimmigrant status under section 241(a)(9) of the Act
  where her criminal conduct did not meaningfully disrupt the pursuit of her
  studies (the purpose for which she was admitted), as evidenced by aboveaverage academic work which actually improved following her incarceration.
CHARGE:
 Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(9))—Failure to comply
                   with conditions of nonimmigrant status.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                        ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
 Raul Soto-Seelig, Esquire                       F. Ernest Ayers
 1022 Georgia-Pacific Bldg.                      Trial Attorney
 Portland, Oregon 97204                          (Brief filed)
 (Brief filed)


  This is a Service appeal from a decision of an immigration judge
ordering these proceedings terminated. The appeal will be dismissed.
  'The respondent is a 20-year-old unmarried female alien, native
and citizen of Pakistan, who entered the United States on or about
September 6, 1971 as a nonimmigrant student authorized to
remain until September 5, 1973. At a hearing before an immigration judge on January 17, 1973, at which she was represented by
present counsel, respondent admitted the truth of the factual
allegations of the order to show cause but denied deportability.
  The record indicates that on September 12, 1972 the respondent
was convicted in the ,Mansfield Municipal Court, Mansfield, Ohio

                                     465
Interim Decision #2237
 for the offense of residing were drug laws are violated, and was
 sentenced to 180 days in jail (Ex. 5). The respondent was incarcerated from September 14, 1972 until October 3, 1972 at which time
 the balance of her sentence was suspended (Ex. 3).
    At the hearing the immigration judge found that since the
 respondent was permitted to resume her studies immediately
 upon her release from custody and successfully completed the
 school term, there had been no violation of her nonimmigrant
 student status. He concluded that our decision in Matter of C , 9
                                                                —


 I. & N. Dec. 100 (BIA 1960); compelled termination of the proceedings. On this appeal the Service urges that Matter of C , supra,
                                                          —


 should not apply and that Matter of A , 

 (BIA
                                        —


 1955), requires a finding of deportability. We reject the trial
 attorney's argument and hold that the proceedings were properly
 terminated.
    Matter of C , supra, involved a nonimmigrant student -Who was
              —


 convicted for disorderly conduct but not incarcerated. The basis
 for our finding that his student status had not been violated was
the fact that he was able to continue his school attendance
 without interruption notwithstanding his offense. We adjudged
that since his education had not been meaningfully disrupted, he
 had not abandoned his pursuit of the purpose for which he was
 admitted to the United States. Matter of A , supra, involved a
                                              —


 nonimmigrant visitor who was convicted and imprisoned for disorderly conduct. We found his incarceration to be inconsistent with
the purpose of his admission, namely, to pursue pleasure, and in
violation of his nonimmigrant status within the meaning of section
 241(a)(9) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    It is clear from these cases that the focus of our inquiry was on
the purpose for which the nonimmigrant was admitted, and not
merely on the presence or absence of penal confinement. In the
present case the respondent was admitted in order to study and
the evidence indicates that her criminal conduct has in no way
interfered with or compromised that purpose. Her major academic
advisor states that her work has been "above average" and "very
satisfactory" (Ex. 7), and the record reflects that the respondent's
grades actually improved during the term for which she registered
late as a result of her incarceration (Ex. 6).
   We therefore conclude that the respondent's conduct has not
constituted a failure to maintian the nonimmigrant status in
which she was admitted. The decision of the immigration judge to
terminate was correct and it will be affirmed. The following order
will be entered.
   ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.


                                466