ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is now hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is affirmed. Assuming arguendo, as Judge Brieant did, that the Immigration Judge DeGaeto was prejudiced, there is no need for a further hearing. The appellant did not have the proper visa to enter the United States for business purposes. Even assuming that the appellant relied, as he claims, on the statement of an immigration officer that he would need no further waivers, such a misstatement cannot estop the Government. Goldberg v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 477, 480-81 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 937 (1977). Moreover, the waiver of documentation under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d) is discretionary, United States ex rel. Sang v. Esperdy, 210 F. Supp. 786, 789 (S.D.N.Y. 1962), and the appellant's situation does not present the type of "unforeseen emergency" to which the statute is directed. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.1(f); 22 C.F.R.§ 41.7. Attempts to secure further delay would constitute an abuse of the process of this court. See Der-Rong Chour v. INS, 578 F.2d 464, 467 (2d Cir. 1978); Hibbert v. INS, 554 F.2d 17, 19 (2d Cir. 1977).