SHIRINIAN

Interim Decision #1773

MATTER or Snnumas-

Application for Classification as Refugee

A-14343990

Decided by Regional Commissioner March 10, 1967

Classification as a refugee under the proviso to section 203 (a) (7) of the Im-

migration and Nationality Act, as amended, is denied a native of Turkey

(an Armenian) and citizen of the United Arab Republic for failure to estab-

lish that she fled from, and is unable or unwilling to return to, the United

Arab Republic because of persecution or fear of persecution on account of

race, religion or political opinion where her passport bad been revalidated

twice by United Arab Republic authorities after she left that country, and

other indications exist that her family bad not been persecuted in that

country.

IN BEHALF OF ArriautriT : Harry A. Ezratty, Esquire

299 Broadway

New York, New York 10007

This matter is before the Regional Commissioner on certification

of the chutisinn of the District Director denying the applications.

The applicant is a 66-year-old native of Turkey and citizen of the

United Arab Republic. She is of the Armenian race and is a member

of the Armenian Orthodox Church. 'She last entered the United

States on October 23, 1963 as a visitor for pleasure until January 30,

1964. On January 20, 1964 she was granted an extension of stay to

May 30, 1964 on her application showing the reason for the request as

to visit the New York World's Fair. She applied May 13, 1964 for a

further extension, "waiting for arrival of relatives, visit Fair together

and return together", and her stay was then extended to November

30, 1964. Three further extensions of stay were granted, the last to

January 1, 1966. These applications showed that her husband, Diran

Chirinian, resided in Cairo. The instant applications for refugee clas-

sification and adjustment of status to permanent residence were

filed January 17, 1966.

The applicant had the two-years continuous physical presence in the

United States specified in the proviso to section 203(a) (7) of the

392

Interim Decision *1773

amended Act. Further pertinent requirements of the subsection are

that applicants thereunder satisfy this Service that :

(I) because of persecution or fear of porscoution on account of race, religion,

or political opinion they have fled (I) from any Communist or Communist-

dominated country or area, or (II) from any country within the general area of

the Middle East, and (ii) are unable or unwilling to return to such country

or area on account of race, religion, or political opinion. . . . (Emphasis

supplied.)

The United Arab Republic, the country of the applicant's last per-

manent foreign residence, is a country within the "general area of the

Middle East" as that term is defined in section 203 (a) (7). On the

application for refugee classification, Form I490A, the applicant

states she fled from:

Cairo, Egypt, on the 16th of August, MO. The persecutions against the Christians

and the Jews were unbearable, and there was no future for the young generation.

I decided to take my daughter out of that "Socialist" country, as soon as possible.

She left as a student and left with her so as to see her settled as she was under-

age yet. I cannot return, because I was supposed to return after six months the

maximum. Naturally I didn't, and if I go back I shall be imprisoned. My hus-

band is kept there as a kind of a hostage and the authorities do not let him

get out of the Country. Moreover, my passport expired last month, and accord-

ingly I am stateless.

The record shows the applicant and her daughter, Mayda (now a

permanent resident of the United States by adjustment of status on

October 24, 1966 after acquiring immediate relative classification

through marriage to a citizen of the United States on •October 11,

1966) , left Egypt on August 16, 1960; that they proceeded through

the United States to Canada where the daughter studied for her Mas-

ter's degree and where they lived until required to depart by the Cana-

dian Immigration Service in November 1962; that they then again

passed through the United States in transit to Switzerland where they

lived about one year in a temporary status; and that they returned to

the United States as visitors on October 23, 1963, as related above.

The applicant was interviewed by an officer of this Service on June 8,

1966. She then stated that she and her daughter could not return to the

United Arab Republic because she was given a visa allowing her to

remain out of that country not more than six months and her daughter

not more than one year; that her husband is a hostage in that country

and is not allowed to leave; and that she does not want to return to the

United Arab Republic for these reasons.

Submitted with the application was a statement signed by the

daughter. The daughter stated the applicant cannot return to Egypt

because (1) she requires the constant care only the daughter can give

her, (2) the applicant could not remain outside Egypt more than six

393

Interim Decision #1773

months and would be imprisoned if she returned to Egypt, and (3)

that the applicant has never been separated from the daughter upon

whom she is dependent in every way. The daughter asserts her father

has had a miserable life since 1960, but states :

My Father, who has an artistic engraving workshop in Cairo, was and is a

very respected man and he does all the fine as well as the top-secret works of

the Government, the Army, the 'United Nations and other foreign Embassies and

4lignitaries. . . .

A friend of the family who has been residing in Switzerland since

shortly after the "Aggression of 1956" states that following the Tri-

partite Aggression against Egypt, the unemployment of white people

in that country increased as well as the injustices; and that he is posi-

tive that should the applicant return to the U.A.R. she would be im-

prisoned because "according to the Egyptians, anybody who stays

out of U.A.R. for over the limited time that is granted, and goes back,

. he or she is guilty and must be punished".

ExaMination of the applicant's passport shows it was issued by the

'United Arab Republic at Cairo on May 24,1960; that it was originally

valid to May 28, 1962; that it was endorsed August 7, 1960 by the

Bank of Alexandria, Cairo, for the release of funds; that it was re-

validated by the Consul General for thelJ.A.R. at Montreal on Febru-

ary 26, 1962 until May 23,1964; and that it was again revalidated by

the Consul General of the U.A.B. at New York on February 1, 1964

until May 23, 1966. The name of the husband is shown on. page 1 of

the passport.

Counsel has presented for our consideration on certification copies of

articles from the New York Times of January ii. and 16, 1967 and

February 6 and 19, 1957. He directs attention to the article of Febru-

ary 19, 1957 which shows that aliens were departing from Egypt in

large numbers. This article stated that there was a mass departure

of stateless Jews; and that Italians, Greeks, and Eastern Europeans

were also leaving because they felt that the outlook for business in the

consumer field, plus the new "Egyptianization" laws, gave little hope

for making a living. The other articles related primarily to the trans-

fer of foreign-owned financial institutions to Egyptian control and to

the treatment of Jews in Egypt. These articles have little if any rele-

vance and are remote in point of time.

We have carefully reviewed the entire record. The primary reason

advanced for the applicant's inability or unwillingness to return to

the United Arab Republic is that by reason of having remained out.

side that country for a longer time than authorized, she will be sub-

ject to imprisonment for a violation of a law of that country. Such

Imprisonment may not be considered on account of race, religion, or

394

Interim Decision #1773

political opinion, but rather is a criminal sanction that is reconcilable

with generally recognized concepts of justice. Cf. Matter of Bufalino,

I.D. #1517; Zwpicich v. Evenly, 319 F.2d 773 (2d Cir. 1963) ;

Dininich v. Evenly, 299 F.2d 244 (2d Cir. 1961) ; and Blazina v.

Bouchard, 286 F.2d 507 (3rd Cir. 1961), certiorari denied 866 U.S. 950.

No evidence has been presented that the applicant was ever threat-

ened with or suffered any persecution in Egypt. The daughter, while

residing there, had obtained an education which qualified her for

acceptance for graduate study in a Canadian university. The various

applications for extensions of temporary stay of our applicant show

bank accounts and funds adequate for her support for an extended

period after departure from the United Arab Republic. Clearly in•

consistent with any claim of unwillingness or inability to return to

the United Arab Republic because of race, religion, or political opin-

ion, or of departure from that country because of persecution or fear

of persecution are the repeated presentations of the applicant's pass-

port to Consular officials thereof for revalidation, particularly since

that document identifies her husband in that country. They were

married in the Armenian Church on September 7, 1921, and it is in-

dicated he is of the same race and religion. He has lived in Egypt since

1914, and has been allowed to continue his business in Cairo, even to

the extent of performing secret work for the government. The appli-

cant wishep to remain in the United States with her daughter. We

conclude that she has failed to establish satisfactorily that she is un-

willing or unable to return- to the United Arab Republic on account

of race, religion, or political opinion. In addition, we find that the

evidence does not establish that the applicant fled from the United

Arab Republic because of.persecution or fear of persecution on account

of race, religion, or political .opinion. She is therefore ineligible for

refugee classification under the proviso to section 203(a) (7) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended.

A statutory requirement for adjustment of status under section 245

of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, is that an im-

migrant visa be immediately available to the applicant. Our appli-

cant does not come within any of the preference categories of section

203(a) of the Act. The nonpreference eategory for Turkey, the quota

area to which she is chargeable, is unavailable according to a current

report from the Department of State. The application for adjustment

of status must be denied on this statutory ground.

It is ordered that the decision of the District Director denying these

applications be and hereby is affirmed.

395

821-854-49--.27