## Facts

- Two applicants, an Irish national and a British national, sought admission to the United States in exclusion proceedings.
- Each entered using a B-2 visitor-for-pleasure visa but intended to attend a nine-month program at the Claymont School for Continuous Education.
- The school was not approved for attendance by nonimmigrant foreign students under the immigration statute.
- The government charged both applicants as excludable under INA § 212(a)(26) as nonimmigrant students lacking valid nonimmigrant visas.
- One applicant was also charged under INA § 212(a)(19) for fraud or willful misrepresentation based on statements made in the visa process.
- The immigration judge found both applicants excludable under § 212(a)(26) and additionally found the one applicant excludable under § 212(a)(19).
- Both applicants appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether an applicant whose primary purpose for coming to the United States is study at a school not approved for foreign students may be admitted as a B-2 visitor for pleasure rather than treated as a student under INA § 101(a)(15)(F).
2. If the applicant does not qualify for any nonimmigrant classification, whether the proper ground of exclusion is INA § 212(a)(20) (immigrant without a valid immigrant visa) rather than INA § 212(a)(26) (certain undocumented nonimmigrants).
3. Whether knowledge that a representation is false satisfies the fraud or willful misrepresentation standard under INA § 212(a)(19), and how the burden of proof applies given the permanence of the bar.

## Decision

- The BIA held that an applicant coming primarily to study at a school not approved for foreign students falls within the student provisions of INA § 101(a)(15)(F) and is not admissible as a B-2 visitor for pleasure under INA § 101(a)(15)(B).
- The BIA rejected the view that B-2 is a general-purpose temporary category; it is limited to a defined class of visitors.
- The BIA concluded that where an applicant fails to establish eligibility for any nonimmigrant classification under INA § 101(a)(15), the applicant is properly treated as an immigrant and is excludable under INA § 212(a)(20) for lack of required immigrant documents, rather than under § 212(a)(26).
- The BIA found adequate notice that immigrant treatment could follow from a failure to qualify as a nonimmigrant because the statutory framework (including INA §§ 101(a)(15) and 214(b)) places nonimmigrant eligibility in issue and can require an immigrant presumption.
- On the fraud charge, the BIA stated that knowledge of falsity satisfies the fraud and willfulness requirements of INA § 212(a)(19), while cautioning that findings supporting the permanent fraud bar should receive close scrutiny, especially where subjective intent is disputed.

## Legal Principles

- An applicant destined for the United States primarily for study at a school not approved for foreign students is governed by the student classification provisions and is not admissible as a B-2 visitor for pleasure.
- The B-2 visitor-for-pleasure category is not a residual classification for any temporary purpose; it is confined by statute and regulation to a defined type of visit.
- If an applicant cannot establish eligibility under any nonimmigrant classification in INA § 101(a)(15), the applicant is treated as an immigrant and is inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(20) for lack of the required immigrant visa or entry documents.
- INA § 291 places the burden on the applicant in exclusion proceedings to show admissibility and to show that no inadmissibility ground applies.
- For INA § 212(a)(19), knowledge that a statement is false satisfies the “fraud” and “willfulness” components; because the consequence is a permanent bar, adjudicators should closely examine the evidentiary basis, particularly when intent is contested.

## Conclusion

The BIA held that applicants whose primary purpose is study at an unapproved school cannot be admitted as B-2 visitors, and that failure to qualify under any nonimmigrant category results in exclusion under INA § 212(a)(20) as an immigrant without proper documents rather than under § 212(a)(26); it also confirmed that knowledge of falsity meets § 212(a)(19)’s willfulness standard while requiring careful factual review given the permanent consequences.


Matter of Healy & Goodchild, 17 I. & N. Dec. 22 (B.I.A. 1979)