HEALY AND GOODCHILD
17 I. & N. Dec. 22 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An alien seeking entry to the United States for the primary purpose of studying at a school not approved by the Attorney General for nonimmigrant students is not admissible as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. Such an alien, having failed to establish entitlement to any nonimmigrant classification, is properly considered an immigrant without the requisite entry documents.
Facts:
- Mr. Healy, a citizen of Ireland residing in Australia, applied for and received a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure visa, stating his purpose was to visit the U.S. for one month.
- Mr. Goodchild, a citizen of Great Britain, also applied for and received a B-2 nonimmigrant visitor visa.
- Prior to their visa applications, both men had been accepted into a nine-month course of study at the Claymont School for Continuing Education.
- The Claymont School had not been approved by the Attorney General for attendance by nonimmigrant students.
- Both Healy and Goodchild had paid a $100 deposit towards the $2,750 tuition for the course before seeking admission to the United States.
- Upon their respective arrivals in New York, immigration inspectors discovered that each man was in possession of a letter of acceptance from the Claymont School.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon arrival in New York, Healy and Goodchild were placed in exclusion proceedings by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
- In a consolidated hearing before an immigration judge, Healy was charged with excludability as a nonimmigrant student without a valid visa and for procuring a visa by fraud.
- Goodchild was charged with excludability as a nonimmigrant student without a valid visa.
- The immigration judge found both applicants excludable as nonimmigrant students without valid visas under section 212(a)(26).
- The immigration judge also found Healy excludable for procuring his visa by willful misrepresentation of a material fact under section 212(a)(19), but dismissed this charge against Goodchild.
- The applicants appealed the immigration judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an alien seeking to enter the United States for the primary purpose of studying at an educational institution not approved by the Attorney General qualify for admission as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure under section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Milhollan, Chairman
No, an alien whose primary purpose for entering the United States is to study at an unapproved institution does not qualify for admission as a nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure. The court reasoned that section 101(a)(15)(B) of the Act, which defines the 'visitor for pleasure' (B-2) category, explicitly excludes an alien 'coming for the purpose of study.' The B-2 category is not a 'catch-all' classification and is limited to legitimate recreational activities. Allowing aliens to use B-2 visas to attend unapproved schools would undermine the specific requirements Congress established for the F-1 student visa classification. Because the applicants failed to establish their entitlement to any nonimmigrant status, they are presumed to be immigrants and are therefore excludable under section 212(a)(20) as immigrants without valid immigrant visas. The court reversed the fraud finding against Mr. Healy, holding that given the uncertain state of the law at the time and the harshness of a fraud finding (a permanent bar), the evidence did not support a finding of willful misrepresentation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict boundaries between different nonimmigrant visa categories, particularly between the B-2 visitor visa and the F-1 student visa. It establishes that the B-2 visa cannot be used as a substitute or workaround for attending a course of study, even if the institution is not eligible for F-1 students. This reinforces the statutory presumption that all aliens are immigrants unless they prove they fit squarely within a specific nonimmigrant classification. The decision also signals that a finding of willful misrepresentation under section 212(a)(19), which carries a permanent bar to admission, requires close scrutiny of the alien's subjective intent, especially when the underlying legal issue is unsettled.
