This case presents a perplexing question of statutory construction. The sole issue before this Court is the proper interpretation of a statute of limitations provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended [hereinafter, “the Act”], 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.

Jiwan Singh is a citizen of India who entered the United States as a non-immigrant student on January 10, 1959.1 On July 24, 1963, he married a United States citizen, and thereafter he applied to the Immigration and Naturalization Service [hereinafter, “the Service”] for adjustment of his status to that of an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The Service, acting pursuant to § 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), granted the adjustment of status on October 18, 1963.2

Section 246(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1256(a), provides, in part,

“If, at any time within five years after the status of a person has been otherwise adjusted under the provisions of section 245 or 249 of this Act or any other provision of law to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the person was not in fact eligible for such adjustment of status, the Attorney General shall rescind the action taken granting an adjustment of status to such person * * * and the person shall thereupon be subject to all provisions of this Act to the same extent as if the adjustment of status had not been made.”

On September 12, 1968, within five years after the Service had adjusted Singh’s status, the Service’s District *1094Director in San Francisco mailed to Singh a notice of his intention to rescind the adjustment of Singh’s status pursuant to § 246(a).3 The notice alleged that Singh and his spouse had never cohabited as husband and wife; that Singh had contracted the marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining permanent residence status; and that, as a result, Singh’s marriage was not valid for the purpose of obtaining an adjustment of his status.4 Singh received the notice on September 19, 1968, which was still within the five-year period specified in § 246(a), and on October 11, 1968, which was also within the five-year period, Singh denied the District Director’s allegations and requested a hearing before a special inquiry officer of the Service.5 The five-year period expired on October 18, 1968.

At a hearing held on December 6, 1968, the special inquiry officer, upon Singh’s motion, terminated the rescission proceeding on the grounds that it was barred by the five-year limitation provision. The special inquiry officer interpreted § 246(a) to require a hearing before a special inquiry officer and a decision by that officer within the five-year period. The Service appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals,6 which sustained the Service’s appeal on December 19, 1969. The Board held that service of a notice of intention to rescind within the five-year period tolled the statute of limitations.

On February 16, 1970, Singh brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to review the decision of the Board.7 The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Singh, reversing the Board’s decision, on May 27, 1970, 313 F.Supp. 532. The Service promptly appealed to this Court. We find the Service’s arguments more persuasive than Singh’s and, accordingly, reverse the District Court’s decision.

Singh urges this Court to follow Quin-tana v. Holland, 255 F.2d 161 (3rd Cir. 1958), in which the Court of Appeals for *1095the Third Circuit held that service of a notice of intention to rescind did not suffice to toll the statute of limitations. The Court reasoned that a district director’s conclusion that an alien had apparently not been eligible for an adjustment of his status was but a preliminary determination and did not meet the requirement of § 246(a) that “it shall appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.” Nothing could “appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General,” the Court reasoned, until after a formal hearing had been held.

The language of § 246(a), however, does not compel the conclusion reached in Quintana. The section simply fails to specify precisely what action must be taken within the prescribed limitation period. The phrase, “shall rescind the action taken,” can be read to require merely the institution of rescission proceedings by service of a notice just as easily as it can be read to require a final decision following a formal hearing. The language of § 246(a), in short, does not preclude a tolling of the statute by the service of a notice, and it is not determinative of the issue before this Court.8

Subsequent changes in the regulations governing rescission, moreover, undermine the applicability of Quintana to the present case. The regulations in effect when Quintana was decided required, as do the present regulations, service by a district director of a notice of intent to rescind as the first step towards rescission.9 In the event that the alien wished to contest the rescission, however, former Regulation 246.12(b) provided for a “personal appearance” or “interview” before an “immigration officer,” rather than a “hearing” before a “special inquiry officer.”10 More important than these changes in terminology is the fact that under the old regulations the immigration officer did not make a decision after the personal appearance; he merely prepared a “report and recommendation.” It was the- district director who decided whether or not rescission was appropriate.11 The same individual who initiated the rescission proceedings, in other words, decided the outcome of those proceedings. Therefore the Court in Quintana had to reckon with the distinct possibility that a district director, acting on the basis of mere suspicion, might toll § 246(a) by service of a notice of intent to rescind and then delay the prosecution of the rescission proceedings so that his staff could complete its investigation — a possibility that would defeat the very purpose of a statute of limitations.12

*1096Present regulations, however, have alleviated this threat. While prosecutorial duties are still delegated to the district director, the responsibility for deciding whether rescission is appropriate lies solely with an independent special inquiry officer.13 If a district director tolls the running of the statute, he cannot prolong the proceedings indefinitely while his staff searches for evidence to support its suspicions. The special inquiry officer controls the pace of the rescission proceeding, much like a judge controls the pace of a lawsuit; he can, as a result, prevent any undue delay that would prejudice the rights of the alien whose adjustment of status is under challenge. See 8 C.F.R. Part 242, especially §§ 242.8(a) and 242.13.

In addition, we fear that construing § 246(a) to require that a hearing be held and a decision reached within the five-year period would encourage too hasty an adjudication of rescission cases. We fear that in proceedings commenced towards the end of the five-year period, special inquiry officers would be tempted to accelerate rescission proceedings so that a decision could be reached before expiration of the deadline — a practice that would hinder the ability of aliens whose adjustments of status are under challenge to respond to the Service’s allegations. We believe, in short, that permitting service of a notice of intent to rescind to toll § 246(a) would serve the interests of aliens whose adjustments of status are challenged better than would the construction championed by Singh. The former construction should promote fair and impartial decisions reached after expeditious, but not hasty, adjudication. It should protect aliens from rushed proceedings conducted with an eye on the calendar; it should not, under the present regulations, promote the premature institution of rescission proceedings without substantial evidence.

Construing § 246(a) to permit the commencement of rescission proceedings to toll the statute of limitations, moreover, is in line with ordinary criminal and civil statutes of limitations, which provide that the filing of an indictment or of a civil complaint tolls the running of the statute.14 Unlike § 246(a) the language of these statutes explicitly provides that commencement of an action shall suffice to toll the running of the statute of limitations. As discussed above, the actual language of § 246(a) affords no hint as to what Congress’ intention was. These statutes are noteworthy, therefore, because the prevalence of limitations provisions that operate in this manner suggests the wisdom of construing § 246(a) to operate in a comparable manner — especially in light of the fact that the new regulations promulgated since Quintana prescribe for*1097mal rescission proceedings deliberately modeled after regular lawsuits. The present regulations explicitly provide, in fact, that “a proceeding shall be commenced by the service * * * of a notice of intent to rescind.” 15

Furthermore, the adoption of Singh’s proposal would not even settle the issue of § 246 (a)’s meaning. Singh’s argument hinges on the words, “appear to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.” The decision of a special inquiry officer, however, is not final, even within the Department of Justice; it may be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 8 C.F.R. § 242.20. If we adopt Singh’s construction of § 246(a) today, tomorrow another alien will certainly ask us to hold that even a special inquiry officer’s decision does not satisfy the statutory requirement and that a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals is necessary. To hold that the Board must pass upon an alien’s ineligibility within the prescribed five-year limitation period would be absurd in light of the prolonged litigation that is necessary before the Board can consider and decide a case. Yet the logic of Singh’s argument would seem to compel that conclusion. We decline to construe § 246(a) in that way.

The decision of the District Court is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for further proceedings consistent herewith.