Matter of Esfandiary

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Fred F. Filsoof, Esquire Robert Lee Erwin 1416 Gas Light Tower Trial Attorney 235 Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303

代表被上诉人： 代表移民局： Fred F. Filsoof律师 Robert Lee Erwin 1416 Gas Light Tower 庭审律师 235 Peachtree Street 佐治亚州亚特兰大30303

The respondent has appealed from the decision of an immigration judge, dated April 19, 1978, finding him deportable as charged and ordering his deportation to Iran. The appeal will be dismissed. The respondent is a 27-year-old native and citizen of Iran who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student in 1969. On October 6, 1972, his status was adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States. On November 19, 1975, an Order to Show Cause was issued, charging the respondent with deportability under section

被上诉人对移民法官1978年4月19日的决定提出上诉，该决定认定其可如所指控般被驱逐出境，并命令将其驱逐至伊朗。上诉将被驳回。 被上诉人是27岁的伊朗国民和公民，于1969年作为非移民学生进入美国。1972年10月6日，其身份调整为美国合法永久居民。1975年11月19日，签发了说明理由令，指控被上诉人根据第

241(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4), as an alien who, within five years after entry, had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and had either been sentenced to con- finement therefore or confined therefore in a prison or corrective in- stitution for a year or more. This charge was based upon the respon- dent's conviction on June 23, 1975, of the crime of grand larceny for which he was sentenced to two years in the Florida State Prison. In a decision dated March 15, 1976, an immigration judge found the respondent deportable on the charge contained in the Order to Show Cause and ordered his deportation to Iran. The respondent appealed to this Board and, on appeal, submitted a copy of a Writ of Error Coram Nobis, entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County, Florida, on June 22, 1976, in which the respondent's original sentence of two years imprisonment was recalled by the Court and, in lieu thereof, the respondent was sentenced to a term of 358 days (Ex. R-1). In a decision dated August 13, 1976, we reopened the proceedings for consideration of this additional evidence. At a reopened hearing held on April 7, 1977, and February 15, 1978, the Immigration and Naturalization Service lodged an additional charge of deportability against the respondent under section 241(a)(4) of the Act as an alien who, at any time after entry, had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. This charge was based on the respondent's convic- tion of grand larceny on June 23, 1975, and his conviction on April 28, 1975, of the crime of malicious trespass. The immigration judge found that both crimes involved moral turpitude, and held the lodged charge sustained in his decision of April 19, 1978. On appeal, the respondent argues that his conviction for malicious trespass is not a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of section 241(a)(4) of the Act. In order to determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude, we must look to the nature of the crime itself. The first step in appraising the offense is to determine what law, or portion of law, was violated. United States ex rel. Teper v. Miller, 87 F. Supp. 285 (S.D.N.Y. 1949). This is extracted from the record of conviction. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 1".2d 757 (2 Cir. 1922). The record in this case contains a certified copy of a judgment of conviction for malicious trespass. At the time of the respondent's conviction, malicious trespass was defined in section E21.18 of the Florida Statutes as follows:

《移民与国籍法》第241(a)(4)条，8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)，作为在入境后五年内因涉及道德败坏的犯罪而被定罪，并因此被判处监禁或因此被关押在监狱或惩教机构一年或以上的外国人。该指控基于被申请人于1975年6月23日因重大盗窃罪被定罪，并因此被判处两年佛罗里达州监狱监禁。在1976年3月15日的裁决中，一名移民法官认定被申请人因《出庭说明理由令》中所载指控而可被驱逐，并命令将其驱逐至伊朗。被申请人向本委员会提出上诉，并在上诉时提交了一份由佛罗里达州莱昂县第二司法巡回区巡回法院于1976年6月22日签发的纠错令状（Writ of Error Coram Nobis）副本，其中法院撤销了被申请人原判两年监禁的刑罚，并改判被申请人358天刑期（Ex. R-1）。在1976年8月13日的裁决中，我们重新开启程序以审议该补充证据。在1977年4月7日和1978年2月15日举行的重新开启的听证会上，移民和归化局对被申请人追加了一项依据该法第241(a)(4)条的驱逐指控，即作为在入境后任何时间因两项并非产生于同一犯罪不当行为计划的涉及道德败坏的犯罪而被定罪的外国人。该指控基于被申请人于1975年6月23日因重大盗窃罪被定罪，以及其于1975年4月28日因恶意侵入罪被定罪。移民法官认定这两项犯罪均涉及道德败坏，并在其1978年4月19日的裁决中维持了追加的指控。在上诉中，被申请人主张其恶意侵入罪的定罪不属于该法第241(a)(4)条含义范围内涉及道德败坏的犯罪的定罪。为确定某项犯罪是否涉及道德败坏，我们必须考察该犯罪本身的性质。评估该罪行的第一步是确定违反了哪项法律或法律的哪一部分。United States ex rel. Teper v. Miller, 87 F. Supp. 285 (S.D.N.Y. 1949)。这是从定罪记录中提取的。Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 1".2d 757 (2 Cir. 1922)。本案记录中包含一份经核证的恶意侵入罪定罪判决书副本。在被申请人被定罪时，恶意侵入罪在《佛罗里达州法规》第E21.18条中定义如下：

Interim Decision #2685

临时裁决第2685号

minimum, and thereby find that a conviction under section 821.18 does not involve moral turpitude. However, the respondent has misinter- preted the precedents in this area. Although we agree that the statute in question may encompass violations which do not necessarily involve moral turpitude, our inquiry does not end at that point. It is a well- established rule that we must then look to the record of conviction for a determination of whether the crime committed involves moral tur- pitude. In the present case malicious trespass requires , specific intent. That intent is found by looking to the record of conviction. Bisaillon v . Hogan, 257 F.2d 435 (9 Cir. 1958) cert. denied 358 U.S. 872 (1958); Matter of N—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 466 (BIA 1959). The record of conviction includes the charge or indictment, the plea, the verdict, and the sen- tence. Glaros v. INS, 416 F.2d 441 (5 Cir. 1969); Matter of Lopez, 13 I. & N. Dec. 725 (BIA 1971). The respondent was charged, in an information dated October 14, 1974, with entering without breaking a dwelling with intent to commit a misdemeanor, to wit: petit larceny. Petit larceny is a crime involving moral turpitude. Quilodran-Brau v. Holland, 132 F. Supp. 765 (RD. Penn. 1966), affd 232 F.2d 183 (3 Cir. 1956) The respondent's conviction of malicious trespass involves a malicious and mischievous intent. This intent is contained in the information, i.e., the intent to commit petit larceny, a crime involving moral turpitude. We find, therefore, that the respondent's conviction of malicious tres- pass is a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as that term is used in section 241(a)(4) of the Act. The record establishes the respondent's deportability by clear, con- vincing, and unequivocal evidence. We will, therefore, dismiss his appeal. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

从而认定根据第821.18条的定罪不涉及道德败坏。然而，被上诉人误解了该领域的先例。尽管我们同意所涉法规可能涵盖不必然涉及道德败坏的违法行为，但我们的审查并不止于此。一项确立已久的规则是，我们必须随后审查定罪记录，以确定所犯罪行是否涉及道德败坏。在本案中，恶意侵入要求具有特定意图。该意图可通过审查定罪记录予以认定。Bisaillon v. Hogan, 257 F.2d 435 (9 Cir. 1958) cert. denied 358 U.S. 872 (1958)；Matter of N—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 466 (BIA 1959)。定罪记录包括指控或起诉书、认罪、裁决和判刑。Glaros v. INS, 416 F.2d 441 (5 Cir. 1969)；Matter of Lopez, 13 I. & N. Dec. 725 (BIA 1971)。 被上诉人在1974年10月14日的起诉书中被指控未经破门进入住宅并意图实施轻罪，即：轻微盗窃。轻微盗窃是一项涉及道德败坏的犯罪。Quilodran-Brau v. Holland, 132 F. Supp. 765 (R.D. Penn. 1966), affd 232 F.2d 183 (3 Cir. 1956) 被上诉人恶意侵入罪的定罪涉及恶意和恶作剧意图。该意图载于起诉书中，即实施轻微盗窃（一项涉及道德败坏的犯罪）的意图。因此，我们认定被上诉人恶意侵入罪的定罪属于该法第241(a)(4)条所用术语所指的涉及道德败坏的犯罪的定罪。 记录以明确、令人信服且毫不含糊的证据证明了被上诉人可被驱逐出境。因此，我们将驳回其上诉。 命令：上诉驳回。