The opinion
Interim Decision #3292
Interim Decision #3292
In re CHAPLAIN SERVICES, INC., Applicant
San Antonio
Panel Decision February 22, 1996
Decided En Banc as Amended July 25, 1996
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
(1) In an application for recognition, an applicant must respond to and successfully rebut an
adverse recommendation made by the district director, even when such recommendation has
been made in a prior recognition proceeding involving the applicant.
(2) Denial of the applicant’s recognition request is justified by unrebutted allegations in the
district director’s recommendation made in prior recognition proceedings that the appli-
cant’s personnel supplied clients with misinformation; that the applicant improperly submit-
ted Notices of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Forms G-28) on behalf
of a purportedly associated attorney who never performed services; that the applicant’s cli-
ents had been charged excessive amounts for services in spite of the applicant’s fee list
which reflects nominal charges; and that the member of the applicant’s staff upon whose
expertise the applicant relies has been the subject of complaints for the unauthorized prac-
tice of law.
BEFORE: Board En Banc: SCHMIDT, Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA,
HEILMAN, HOLMES, HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, FILPPU, COLE, ROSENBERG,
MATHON, and GUENDELSBERGER, Board Members.
SCHMIDT, Chairman:
An application dated October 19, 1993, was submitted by Chaplain Ser-
vices, Inc., requesting recognition by this Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 292.2
(1995). The application will be disapproved.
I. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
According to 8 C.F.R. § 292.2(a), a nonprofit religious, charitable, social
service, or similar organization established in the United States may be rec-
ognized by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Such an organization must
establish to the satisfaction of the Board that it makes only nominal charges
and assesses no excessive membership dues for persons given assistance, and
that it has at its disposal adequate knowledge, information, and experience in
immigration law and procedure.
578
Interim Decision #3292
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 292.2(b), an organization seeking recognition must
file an application with the Board, along with proof of service of a copy of the
application on the appropriate district director of the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service. The Service is required by this regulation to review the
application and submit to the Board its recommendation for approval or dis-
approval and the reasons therefor, or request a specified period of time in
which to conduct an investigation or otherwise obtain relevant information
regarding the applicant. A copy of the application in this case was served on
the district director, who recommends disapproval of the application.
II. PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
The record in this case reflects that in an order dated April 9, 1993, the
Board denied the applicant’s previous request for recognition. In that pro-
ceeding, in a submission dated January 7, 1993, the district director recom-
mended disapproval of the applicant’s recognition request. In his
recommendation, the district director stated:
Chaplain Services Inc., has come to the attention of the San Antonio District, through com-
plaints of clients represented by Chaplain Services, Inc., alleging misinformation and
excessive charges for completing applications filed before this Service.
This district has had cases in which applicants relate to being coached by Mrs. Julia
Grimaldo Herrera, on what to tell the Examiner and to provide false information to satisfy a
requirement of the Immigration Act.
Chaplain Services, Inc., has been issuing Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as
Attorney or Representative, using an attorney named . . . . In a meeting held in the district
office attended by Mrs. Grimaldo-Herrera, [the attorney] and another employee of Chap-
lain, [the attorney] admitted to the use of her signature on G-28’s without her seeing or per-
sonally interviewing the applicant represented. The G-28’s were being rubber stamped with
[the attorney’s] signature. Although that practice stopped for applications submitted to this
office, the practice continued at the Service Processing Center and the Houston District
Office until again confronted.
A copy of this recommendation was served upon the applicant. The appli-
cant did not submit a response within the 30-day period specified in 8 C.F.R.
§ 292.2(b). In its decision of April 9, 1993, the Board found that recognition
under 8 C.F.R. § 292.2(a) was not warranted. The Board concluded that the
applicant had not demonstrated that it has adequate knowledge, information,
and experience in immigration law and procedure. We further found that the
applicant had not demonstrated that it charged only nominal amounts for its
services and that it was a nonprofit organization within the scope of the
regulations.
III. PRESENT REQUEST FOR RECOGNITION
In its present submission dated November 22, 1993, the applicant states
that it is a nonprofit charitable and social service organization which, in its
five offices throughout the State of Texas, provides immigration counseling
579
Interim Decision #3292
to persons needing such assistance. It purports to provide a wide range of
immigration services to its clients, including assistance in filing visa petitions
and naturalization applications. The applicant has submitted a list of fees it
charges for such services. This list reflects fees including $50 for visa peti-
tions for alien relatives, $50 for adjustment of status applications, $75 for nat-
uralization petitions, $100 for registry applications, and $100 for joint
petitions to remove conditional status. In its submission the applicant also
asserts that it will provide free services and that payment is not a prerequisite
of service. It further states that it is not dependent on the income from fees to
fund its operations, as it also operates a Ministry Program, Citizenship Pro-
gram, and Educational Program for Nursing Assistants and Security Guards.
To support its contention that it is nonprofit, the applicant submitted its Arti-
cles of Incorporation under the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act and its cer-
tificate showing exemption from the Texas franchise tax.
In support of its application, the applicant relies upon the expertise of Julia
Grimaldo Herrera. Her resume reflects that from 1987 until 1990 she was the
director of her own organization which received status as a “designated
entity” under 8 C.F.R. § 245a.1(l) (1990), which was qualified to receive
applications in the legalization program. Ms. Herrera’s resume further indi-
cates that she has served as the applicant’s director since 1990. She repre-
sents that she has attended an 80-hour paralegal course involving all aspects
of immigration law, as well as courses in family visas, citizenship, legaliza-
tion, and deportation issues. Ms. Herrera also submitted a statement claiming
that she was slandered regarding her representation of aliens and that she
cooperated with the Service in its investigation of alleged misconduct. She
further denies that she ever filed an immigration form without the client or
the employer present. She notes that she received a Certificate of Recognition
from the Service’s San Antonio office in 1989, which she believed exoner-
ated her from all allegations against her.
The applicant also states that it has an agreement with an attorney who is
certified in Texas as an immigration specialist. According to the applicant, it
has use of his library, and he and his staff are available to consult with the
applicant’s staff on immigration issues. The applicant has submitted letters of
support on behalf of its recognition request from various community officials
and from private immigration practitioners.
In a submission dated January 26, 1994, the district director recommends
disapproval of the applicant’s request. Although the applicant claims Ms.
Herrera has adequate knowledge and experience of immigration law and pro-
cedure, the district director states that no proof of attendance at the alleged
courses has been submitted and that, in any event, her experience is insuffi-
cient to satisfy the regulations. He further opposes the applicant’s request
because the applicant charges amounts which the district director maintains
are not nominal. In his recommendation the district director also asserts that
the applicant operates a number of offices throughout Texas and has failed to
580
Interim Decision #3292
indicate where the proposed representative is employed. Finally, he notes
that a lawsuit was filed on October 6, 1993, in Travis County, Texas, charg-
ing Ms. Herrera with the unauthorized practice of law.
The record reflects that the applicant was granted extensions in order to
respond to the concerns of the district director. In a letter dated June 6, 1994,
counsel for the applicant stated that the application was recently resubmitted
to the district director for further review. The applicant also admitted that Ms.
Herrera was the subject of an unauthorized practice of law of complaint, but
stated that a final agreement should be forthcoming which would allow Mr.
Herrera to engage in any activities that the Board would authorize. Addi-
tional time was requested in the hope of obtaining a different recommenda-
tion from the district director. However, in a letter dated November 28, 1994,
counsel for the applicant requested the Board’s adjudication of the request on
the documents submitted, as no further recommendation from the district
director was expected.
IV. ANALYSIS
We find that the applicant has again failed to demonstrate that recognition
is warranted. The applicant has not shown that it possesses adequate knowl-
edge, information, and experience in immigration law and procedure. In
reaching this conclusion we have again considered the recommendation of
the district director dated January 7, 1993, which states that the Service has
received complaints concerning misinformation supplied by the applicant to
its clients. The applicant has failed to successfully rebut these charges. We
note also that Ms. Herrera admits that she is the subject of complaints for the
unauthorized practice of law. Although she admittedly presents herself as
one having specialized legal knowledge and status to represent clients, in fact
she lacks the qualifications or status to support such claims.
The applicant has also again failed to successfully rebut the district direc-
tor’s prior charges in his recommendation in the previous proceedings that it
improperly submitted Notices of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Repre-
sentative (Forms G-28). The attorney purportedly associated with the appli-
cant admitted that she performed no services and indeed never met with the
applicant’s clients. The district director’s allegations that the applicant coun-
selled its clients to supply false information to Service officials also remains
unrebutted.
We further find that the applicant’s recognition request should be denied
because it has not demonstrated that it is a nonprofit social service, religious,
charitable, or similar organization which charges only nominal amounts for
its services. In Matter of American Paralegal Academy, Inc., 19 I&N Dec.
386, 387 (BIA 1986), the Board defined the term “nominal” charges as set
forth in 8 C.F.R. § 292.2(a) as meaning a very small quantity or something
existing in name only, as distinguished from something real or actual. The list
581
Interim Decision #3292
of the applicant’s fees submitted in support of its request reflects charges
which appear to be nominal in amount, and the applicant asserts that such
amounts are voluntary on the part of its clients. The district director’s recom-
mendation dated January 7, 1993, belies such assertions, however, and it
appears that in actual practice the applicant’s clients may pay excessive fees.
The applicant has not successfully refuted the district director’s allegations in
this regard.
Moreover, although the applicant claims to be a nonprofit organization
which operates a number of offices in Texas, it has supplied no documenta-
tion concerning its sources of funding to reflect how such extensive opera-
tions are financially supported. Given the district director’s allegations,
which have not been adequately refuted by the applicant, we have misgivings
concerning the applicant’s true purpose. See Matter of Baptist Educational
Center, 20 I&N Dec. 723 (BIA 1993).
Finally, as we noted in our decision dated April 9, 1993, the applicant
operates a number of offices in Texas. Because it has not identified in which
office its proposed representative is employed, the applicant’s recognition is
also properly denied. See Matter of Florida Rural Legal Service, Inc., 20
I&N Dec. 639 (BIA 1993).
V. CONCLUSION
Because the applicant has not demonstrated that it satisfies the require-
ments for recognition as stated in 8 C.F.R. § 292.2(a), the application will be
disapproved.
ORDER: The application is disapproved.
582