Matter of Adamiak

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) Interim Decision #3525

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) 临时决定 #3525

File A27 253 715 - Cleveland

案卷 A27 253 715 - 克利夫兰

Decided February 8, 2006

2006年2月8日决定

U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals

美国司法部 移民审查执行办公室 移民上诉委员会

A conviction vacated pursuant to section 2943.031 of the Ohio Revised Code for failure of the trial court to advise the alien defendant of the possible immigration consequences of a guilty plea is no longer a valid conviction for immigration purposes.

根据《俄亥俄州修订法典》第2943.031条，因初审法院未告知外籍被告认罪可能导致的移民后果而撤销的定罪，不再构成移民目的下的有效定罪。

FOR RESPONDENT: Margaret W. Wong, Esquire, Cleveland, Ohio

被申请人代理律师：Margaret W. Wong，Esquire，俄亥俄州克利夫兰

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Victoria A. Christian, Deputy Chief Counsel

国土安全部代理律师：Victoria A. Christian，副首席法律顾问

BEFORE: Board Panel: HOLMES, HURWITZ, and MILLER, Board Members.

审理法官：委员会成员 HOLMES、HURWITZ 和 MILLER。

HOLMES, Board Member:

HOLMES，委员会成员：

In a decision dated May 11, 2004, an Immigration Judge found the respondent ineligible for cancellation of removal as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and ordered him removed from the United States. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.

在2004年5月11日的决定中，移民法官认定被申请人作为被判犯有加重重罪的外国人，不符合取消递解出境的条件，并命令将其驱逐出美国。被申请人对该决定提出上诉。上诉将获支持，案件记录将发回进一步审理。

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I. 事实与程序历史

The respondent is a lawful permanent resident who was charged with removability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony based on his September 1997 guilty plea to a drug trafficking offense in violation of section 2925.03 of the Ohio Revised Code. During the course of the immigration proceedings, the respondent filed a motion with the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas requesting that he be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and that his conviction be vacated as a result of the court’s failure to comply with section 2943.031 of the Ohio Revised Code, under which a court is required to give an “advisement” with respect to the potential immigration consequences of a guilty plea. In October 2002, the trial court granted the respondent’s motion, permitted withdrawal of his guilty plea, and scheduled a new trial date in his case.

被申请人是合法永久居民，因1997年9月对违反《俄亥俄州修订法典》第2925.03条的毒品贩运罪表示认罪，被指控作为被判犯有加重重罪的外国人而应被递解出境。在移民程序过程中，被申请人向凯霍加县普通诉讼法院提出动议，请求允许其撤回认罪，并因法院未遵守《俄亥俄州修订法典》第2943.031条而撤销其定罪，该条规定法院必须就认罪可能导致的移民后果进行“告知”。2002年10月，初审法院批准了被申请人的动议，允许撤回其认罪，并为其案件安排了新的审判日期。

878

878

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) Interim Decision #3525

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) 临时决定 #3525

On November 26, 2002, an Immigration Judge ruled that the Ohio court’s order vacating the respondent’s drug trafficking conviction had no effect for immigration purposes under the definition of a conviction provided at section 101(a)(48) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) (2000), and she found the respondent removable as charged. At a subsequent hearing held on May 11, 2004, a newly assigned Immigration Judge deferred to the earlier determination that the respondent’s 1997 aggravated felony conviction remained in effect for immigration purposes. The Immigration Judge further concluded that the respondent’s conviction precluded him from establishing eligibility for cancellation of removal and ordered him removed.

2002年11月26日，一名移民法官裁定，根据《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(48)条（8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) (2000)）规定的定罪定义，俄亥俄州法院撤销被申请人毒品贩运定罪的命令在移民目的下无效，并认定被申请人可如指控般被递解出境。在随后于2004年5月11日举行的听证会上，新指派的移民法官遵从先前的裁定，即被申请人1997年的加重重罪定罪在移民目的下仍然有效。移民法官进一步得出结论，被申请人的定罪使其无法证明符合取消递解出境的条件，并命令将其递解出境。

In its brief on appeal, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) notes that Immigration Judges have issued inconsistent decisions on whether a conviction vacated under section 2943.031 of the Ohio Revised Code should be recognized for immigration purposes. For the reasons indicated below, we agree with the respondent that the conviction based on his September 1997 guilty plea has been vacated as a result of a defect in the underlying proceedings and should no longer be considered a conviction for immigration purposes.

国土安全部（“DHS”）在上诉简报中指出，移民法官对于根据《俄亥俄州修订法典》第2943.031条撤销的定罪是否应在移民目的下予以承认，作出了不一致的裁决。基于下述理由，我们同意被申请人的观点，即基于其1997年9月认罪的定罪因基础程序中的缺陷而被撤销，不应再被视为移民目的下的定罪。

II. ANALYSIS

II. 分析

In our decisions addressing the effect of State court orders vacating convictions, we have distinguished between situations in which a conviction is vacated based on post-conviction events, such as rehabilitation, and those in which a conviction is vacated because of a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings. See Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003) (concluding that in light of the language and legislative purpose of the definition of a “conviction” at section 101(a)(48) of the Act, “there is a significant distinction between convictions vacated on the basis of a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying proceedings and those vacated because of post-conviction events, such as rehabilitation or immigration hardships”); see also Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2000) (according full faith and credit to a New York court’s vacation of a conviction under a statute that was neither an expungement nor a rehabilitative statute).

在我们处理州法院撤销定罪命令效力的裁决中，我们区分了基于定罪后事件（如康复）而撤销定罪的情况，以及因基础刑事程序存在缺陷而撤销定罪的情况。参见 Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003)（结论认为，鉴于《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(48)条中“定罪”定义的语言和立法目的，“基于基础程序中的程序或实质缺陷而撤销的定罪与因定罪后事件（如康复或移民困难）而撤销的定罪之间存在重大区别”）；另见 Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, 22 I&N Dec. 1378 (BIA 2000)（对纽约法院根据既非消除犯罪记录亦非康复性法规的法规撤销定罪给予充分信任与尊重）。

The Ohio court’s order permitting withdrawal of the respondent’s guilty plea is based on a defect in the underlying proceedings, i.e., the failure of the court to advise the respondent of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty plea, as required by Ohio law. To remedy the defect in the original proceedings, the trial court ordered that the respondent be afforded a new trial on the underlying drug trafficking charge. Under these circumstances, we find that the Ohio court’s vacation of the respondent’s conviction should be

俄亥俄州法院允许撤回被申请人认罪的命令是基于基础程序中的缺陷，即法院未按照俄亥俄州法律的要求告知被申请人认罪可能导致的移民后果。为补救原程序中的缺陷，初审法院命令给予被申请人就 underlying 毒品贩运指控进行重新审判的机会。在此情况下，我们认为俄亥俄州法院撤销被申请人定罪的决定应

879

879

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) Interim Decision #3525

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) 临时决定 #3525

recognized in immigration proceedings. In the absence of a statutory directive to the contrary, we are required by 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2000) to give full faith and credit to this State court judgment.

在移民程序中得到承认。在没有相反的法定指令的情况下，我们根据28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2000) 必须对该州法院判决给予充分信任与尊重。

To the extent that the DHS relies on Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 812-13 (5th Cir. 2002), our decisions in Matter of Pickering, supra, and Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, supra, make clear that we do not share the view of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on this matter. The Sixth Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this proceeding arises, has not adopted the Fifth Circuit’s approach in Renteria-Gonzalez. Moreover, the Government recently stated its view in a case arising within the Fifth Circuit that “the Board’s opinion in [Matter of] Pickering constitutes a permissible construction of the statute because it comprehensively addresses the effect of a vacated conviction.” Discipio v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 2005). Consequently, the court in Discipio granted the Government’s request to remand the case to the Board for termination of removal proceedings based on the vacation of the respondent’s conviction because of procedural defects in the underlying criminal proceedings. See also Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2005) (approving the Board’s distinction between “convictions vacated for rehabilitative purposes and those vacated because of underlying defects in the criminal proceedings”), and cases cited therein.

就DHS依赖 Renteria-Gonzalez v. INS, 322 F.3d 804, 812-13 (5th Cir. 2002) 而言，我们在 Matter of Pickering, supra 和 Matter of Rodriguez-Ruiz, supra 中的裁决明确表明，我们不同意美国第五巡回上诉法院在此问题上的观点。本程序所在的第六巡回法院尚未采纳第五巡回法院在 Renteria-Gonzalez 案中的方法。此外，政府最近在第五巡回法院辖区内的一起案件中表示其观点，即“委员会在[Matter of] Pickering 案中的意见构成对法规的允许解释，因为它全面处理了撤销定罪的影响。” Discipio v. Ashcroft, 417 F.3d 448, 450 (5th Cir. 2005)。因此，Discipio 案中的法院批准了政府将案件发回委员会以终止递解出境程序的请求，理由是基于基础刑事程序中的程序缺陷而撤销了被申请人的定罪。另见 Pinho v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2005)（批准委员会对“为康复目的撤销的定罪与因刑事程序中的基础缺陷而撤销的定罪”的区分），以及其中引用的案件。

The remaining issue is whether subsequent developments in the respondent’s criminal case, including his November 2002 drug trafficking conviction, indicate that he nonetheless remains convicted of an aggravated felony drug offense and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal.1 Among other arguments, the respondent asserts that the record of conviction for his November 2002 drug trafficking conviction does not establish that he sold or offered to sell cocaine for profit or any other benefit. Our limited review authority precludes us from engaging in fact-finding in the course of deciding appeals. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2005). As the November 2002 record of conviction has not yet been examined by the Immigration Court, we will remand the record for a determination whether the respondent’s subsequent conviction is for an aggravated felony within the meaning of section 101(a)(43)(B) of the Act.2

剩余问题是，被申请人刑事案件中的后续发展，包括其2002年11月的毒品贩运定罪，是否表明他仍然被判犯有加重重罪毒品犯罪，因此不符合取消递解出境的条件。1 除其他论点外，被申请人主张，其2002年11月毒品贩运定罪的定罪记录并未证明其为获利或任何其他利益出售或提议出售可卡因。我们有限的审查权限禁止我们在裁决上诉过程中进行事实认定。8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv) (2005)。由于移民法院尚未审查2002年11月的定罪记录，我们将案件记录发回，以裁定被申请人的后续定罪是否属于《移民与国籍法》第101(a)(43)(B)条含义内的加重重罪。2

1 The question whether the subsequent conviction based on a guilty plea to an amended indictment would be an aggravated felony was raised and preserved for appeal at the May 11, 2004, Immigration Court hearing.

1 关于基于对修正起诉书的认罪而作出的后续定罪是否构成加重重罪的问题，已在2004年5月11日移民法院听证会上提出并保留上诉。

2 A number of decisions of the Sixth Circuit issued subsequent to the Immigration Judge’s decision in this case may be relevant to whether the respondent’s current conviction is for an aggravated felony. See, e.g., United States v. Palacios-Suarez, 418 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 2005) (indicating that the court will follow the hypothetical Federal felony approach in

2 移民法官在本案裁决后第六巡回法院作出的若干裁决可能与被申请人当前定罪是否构成加重重罪相关。参见，例如，United States v. Palacios-Suarez, 418 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 2005)（表明法院将在

880

880

Cite as 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) Interim Decision #3525

引用为 23 I&N Dec. 878 (BIA 2006) 临时决定 #3525

III. CONCLUSION

III. 结论

The respondent’s September 1997 conviction was vacated by the trial court pursuant to section 2943.031 of the Ohio Revised Code because of a defect in the underlying criminal proceedings, i.e., the failure of the court to advise him of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We conclude that the court’s vacation of that conviction should be recognized for immigration purposes, and we no longer consider the conviction to be valid. The record will be remanded for further consideration of the respondent’s November 2002 conviction. ORDER: The appeal is sustained. FURTHER ORDER: The record remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and for the entry of a new decision.

被申请人1997年9月的定罪由初审法院根据《俄亥俄州修订法典》第2943.031条因基础刑事程序中的缺陷（即法院未告知其认罪可能导致的移民后果）而撤销。我们得出结论，法院对该定罪的撤销应在移民目的下得到承认，我们不再认为该定罪有效。案件记录将发回，以进一步审议被申请人2002年11月的定罪。 命令：上诉获支持。 进一步命令：案件记录发回移民法院，按照本意见进行进一步程序并作出新裁决。

applying section 101(a)(43)(B) in immigration cases); Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 376 F.3d 507, 513-14 (6th Cir. 2004) (identifying 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) (2000) as the appropriate Federal analogue in a case involving a drug trafficking conviction).

在移民案件中适用第101(a)(43)(B)条）；Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 376 F.3d 507, 513-14 (6th Cir. 2004)（在涉及毒品贩运定罪的案件中，认定21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(D) (2000) 为适当的联邦类似法规）。

881

881