Matter of Hernandez-Ponce

Interim Decision #8055

临时决定第8055号

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Pro se Joseph M. Ragusa General Attorney

代表被申请人： 代表服务局： 自行代理 Joseph M. Ragusa 总检察长

In a decision dated August 4, 1987, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable pursuant to section 241(a)(11) of the Im- migration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX11) (Supp. W 1986), denied his application for voluntary departure, and ordered him deported to Mexico_ The respondent has appealed. Additional- ly, the 'Immigration and Naturalization Service has raised the issue of the respondent's deportability. Pursuant to our authority under 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(c) (1988), we will consider that issue on certification.

在1987年8月4日的一项决定中，移民法官根据《移民与国籍法》第241(a)(11)条，8 U.S.C. § 1251(aX11)（Supp. W 1986），裁定被申请人可被驱逐出境，驳回其自愿离境申请，并命令将其驱逐至墨西哥。被申请人已提出上诉。此外，移民与归化局提出了被申请人可被驱逐出境的问题。根据8 C.F.R. § 3.1(c)（1988）赋予我们的权力，我们将在认证的基础上审议该问题。

The respondent's appeal will be dismissed and his request for oral argument before the Board is denied. The decision of the immigra- tion judge will be affirmed. The respondent is a 23-year-old male, native and citizen of Mexico, who was admitted to the United States as a lawful perma- nent resident in 1984. On September 29, 1986, the respondent was convicted in the State of California Municipal Court, County of Santa Clara, of the crime of use and being under the influence of phencyclidine ("PCP") in -violation of section 11550(b) of the Califor- nia Health and Safety Code. On January 14, 1987, the respondent was convicted of the same crime before the same court. On April 24, 1987, an Order to Show Cause, Notice of Hearing, and Warrant for Arrest of Alien (Form I-221S) was issued against the respond- ent charging him with being deportable on the basis of these two convictions. At his deportation hearing on August 4, 1987, the re- spondent admitted to all of the factual allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause but denied that he was deportable based on his record. The immigration judge found the respondent to be de. portable as charged. On appeal, the respondent argues that he was without legal rep- resentation at his deportation hearing and, because of his own lack of familiarity with immigration law and procedure, that he was not adequately represented. The respondent asserts that the immigra- tion judge abused his discretion by proceeding with the hearing before the respondent was able to obtain counsel. From our review of the record we note that the immigration judge took scrupulous care to inform the respondent of his right to be represented by counsel while also informing him of Legal Aid counsel which might be available at no charge. The respondent first appeared before the immigration judge on May 7, 1987, at which time his hearing was postponed until June 25, 1987, in order to provide him with the opportunity to obtain counsel. On June 25, 1987, the respondent again appeared before the immigration judge without counsel. At this time, the attorney for the Service lodged a new factual allegation relating to the respondent's January 14, 1987, drug conviction. The judge postponed the respondent's depor- tation hearing until August 4, 1987, thereby affording him a fur- ther opportunity to obtain legal representation and to prepare his defense on the new factual allegation. On August 4, 1987, the re- spondent again appeared before the immigration judge without counsel. At this hearing, the immigration judge elected to proceed with the deportation hearing, having the respondent represent himself. We find that the immigration judge fully informed the re- spondent of his right to be represented by counsel and reasonably

被申请人的上诉将被驳回，其要求在委员会进行口头辩论的请求被拒绝。移民法官的决定将被维持。 被申请人为一名23岁男性，墨西哥本土出生和公民，于1984年作为合法永久居民获准进入美国。1986年9月29日，被申请人在加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉县市法院被判犯有使用和受苯环己哌啶（“PCP”）影响罪，违反《加利福尼亚州健康与安全法典》第11550(b)条。1987年1月14日，被申请人在同一法院被判犯有同一罪行。1987年4月24日，针对被申请人签发了《说明理由令、听证通知和外国人逮捕令》（表格I-221S），指控其基于这两项定罪可被驱逐出境。在1987年8月4日的驱逐出境听证会上，被申请人承认《说明理由令》中所载的所有事实指控，但否认基于其记录可被驱逐出境。移民法官裁定被申请人如所指控可被驱逐出境。 在上诉中，被申请人主张其在驱逐出境听证会上没有法律代表，且由于其本人不熟悉移民法和程序，未获得充分代表。被申请人声称移民法官在被申请人能够获得律师之前即进行听证，滥用了其自由裁量权。 经审查记录，我们注意到移民法官极其谨慎地告知被申请人其由律师代表的权利，同时告知其可能免费获得的法律援助律师。被申请人首次于1987年5月7日出庭移民法官面前，当时其听证被推迟至1987年6月25日，以便为其提供获得律师的机会。1987年6月25日，被申请人再次无律师出庭移民法官面前。此时，服务局律师提出了与被申请人1987年1月14日毒品定罪有关的新事实指控。法官将被申请人的驱逐出境听证推迟至1987年8月4日，从而为其提供进一步机会获得法律代表并就新事实指控准备辩护。1987年8月4日，被申请人再次无律师出庭移民法官面前。在此次听证中，移民法官选择继续进行驱逐出境听证，由被申请人自行代表。我们认定移民法官充分告知了被申请人其由律师代表的权利，并合理地

granted several continuances of the hearing for the purpose of al- lowing the respondent to obtain representation. See 8 C.F.R. § 242.13 (1987). The respondent's failure to obtain counsel after a rather lengthy period of time and several continuances makes ap- parent that he simply was unable to secure counsel at his own ex- pense. Consequently, the immigration judge had no option but to proceed with the hearing. See Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir. 1986). We are convinced that the respondent's hearing was full, fair, and thorough. Thus, we find no merit in the respondent's claims on appeal, which will therefore be dismissed. The Service asks us to consider and affirm the decision of the im- migration judge, finding the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Act based upon his two convictions for use and being under the influence of PCP. In his decision, the immigration judge noted that, prior to Octo- ber of 1986, section 241(a)(11) of the Act rendered deportable only those aliens who had been convicted of an offense "relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs nr marihuana." This Board has previously held that an alien convicted of an offense of use of a narcotic substance, as opposed to its possession, was not excludable under the stat'iite. 1 See Matter of Sum, 13 I&N Dec. 569 (13IA 1970). However, the immigration judge noted that the recent- ly amended version of section 241(a)(11) of the Act rendered inap- plicable our holding in Matter of Sum. We must agree. On October 27, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stet. 3207. This act amended the immigration laws to render deportable any alien who

批准了数次听证延期，目的是让被申请人获得代表。见8 C.F.R. § 242.13（1987）。被申请人在相当长一段时间和数次延期后仍未获得律师，表明其显然无法自费聘请律师。因此，移民法官别无选择，只能继续进行听证。见Vides-Vides v. INS, 783 F.2d 1463 (9th Cir. 1986)。我们确信被申请人的听证是完整、公平和彻底的。因此，我们认定被申请人的上诉主张没有依据，因此将被驳回。 服务局要求我们审议并维持移民法官的决定，即根据该法第241(a)(11)条，基于被申请人两次被判犯有使用和受PCP影响罪，裁定其可被驱逐出境。 在其决定中，移民法官指出，在1986年10月之前，该法第241(a)(11)条仅使那些被判犯有“与非法持有或贩运麻醉药品或大麻有关的”罪行的外国人可被驱逐出境。本委员会此前曾裁定，被判犯有使用麻醉物质罪（而非持有罪）的外国人根据该法规不可被驱逐出境。1 见Matter of Sum, 13 I&N Dec. 569 (13IA 1970)。然而，移民法官指出，最近修订的该法第241(a)(11)条使我们在Matter of Sum中的裁定不适用。我们必须同意。 1986年10月27日，里根总统签署了1986年《反毒品滥用法》。Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stet. 3207。该法修订了移民法，使任何外国人可被驱逐出境，如果该外国人

is, or hereafter at any time after entry has been, a narcotic drug addict, or who at any time has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a con- trolled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)). Section 241(a)(11) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986) (amending 8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(11) (1982)). This amendment significantly broadened the language used to describe the types of offenses which have traditionally jeopardized an alien's status. Under the immigration law as it existed prior to its amendment by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, the following aliens were deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Act for drug-related conduct:

是，或此后在入境后任何时间曾是，麻醉药品成瘾者，或任何时间曾被判犯有违反或共谋违反州、美国或外国与受管制物质（定义见《受管制物质法》第102条（21 U.S.C. 802））有关的任何法律或法规的罪行。 该法第241(a)(11)条，8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11)（Supp. IV 1986）（修订8 U.S.C. §1251(a)(11)（1982））。 该修订显著扩大了用于描述传统上危及外国人身份的犯罪类型的措辞。在《反毒品滥用法》修订之前的移民法下，以下外国人因毒品相关行为根据该法第241(a)(11)条可被驱逐出境：

[ajny alien ... who at any time has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspira- cy to violate, any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana, or who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation governing, or controlling the taxing, manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispens- ing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose of the manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispens- ing, giving away, importation, or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, mari- huana, any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves or insonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustqining opiate. 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (1982), amended by 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986) (emphasis added). The Service, in its written brief, asserts that, by enacting the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Congress so enhanced the national drug en- forcement law and policy that the amendment to the deportation statute now renders deportable any alien convicted of any law re- lating to controlled substances, including being "under the influ- ence" of a controlled substance. It is evident to us, according to the plain words of the amended statute, that Congress intended to expand rather than limit the power of the Government to curtail drug abuse through the immi- gration laws. Prior to the recent amendments, section 241(a)(11) listed the specific drug-related criminal activities which Congress considered sufficient to warrant the exclusion or deportation of aliens. The amended statute refers to "any law or regulation" re- lating to a controlled substance. These are words which, according to our construction, clearly contain no limitation. Thus, our con- struction of the former statute set forth in Matter of Sum, supra, which distinguished a conviction for unlawful use of a proscribed drug from a conviction for its unlawful possession, was based on the clearly different language of the former statute and is clearly incompatible with the plain meaning of the amended statute. In the case before us, the respondent has admitted to being twice convicted for the crime of use and being under the influence of phencyclidine. Phencyclidine is listed as a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. See 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1982). We must conclude that the respondent falls within the purview of the amended language of section 241(a)(11) of the Act, which refers to convictions "relating to a controlled substance." Accordingly, the decision of the immigration judge relating to the respondent's de- portability will be affirmed. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the immi- gration judge is affirmed.

[任]何外国人……在任何时候曾被判定违反或共谋违反与非法持有或贩运麻醉药品或大麻有关的任何法律或法规，或曾被判定违反或共谋违反任何规范或管制鸦片、古柯叶、海洛因、大麻、鸦片或古柯叶的任何盐类衍生物或制剂或异索丙卡因或任何成瘾性或维持成瘾性的阿片剂的征税、制造、生产、配制、运输、销售、交换、配发、赠送、进口、出口，或为制造、生产、配制、运输、销售、交换、配发、赠送、进口或出口之目的而持有的法律或法规。 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (1982)，经8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986)修正（着重号为原文所加）。 移民局在其书面答辩状中主张，通过制定《反毒品滥用法》，国会如此加强了国家毒品执法法律和政策，以致该驱逐出境法规的修正案现在使得任何被判定犯有与受管制物质有关的任何法律的外国人均可被驱逐出境，包括处于受管制物质“影响之下”的情形。 我们认为，根据修正后法规的明文规定，国会意图扩大而非限制政府通过移民法遏制毒品滥用的权力。在最近的修正案之前，第241(a)(11)条列举了国会认为足以构成对外国人排除或驱逐出境的特定毒品相关犯罪活动。修正后的法规提及与受管制物质有关的“任何法律或法规”。根据我们的解释，这些词语显然不包含任何限制。因此，我们在Matter of Sum, supra一案中对原法规所作的解释——该解释将非法使用违禁药物的定罪与非法持有该药物的定罪相区分——是基于原法规明显不同的措辞，并且显然与修正后法规的明文含义不相容。 在本院审理的案件中，被申请人已承认两次因使用和处于苯环己哌啶影响之下的犯罪而被定罪。苯环己哌啶被《受管制物质法》列为受管制物质。参见21 U.S.C. § 812 (1982)。我们必须得出结论，被申请人属于该法第241(a)(11)条修正后措辞的适用范围，该措辞提及“与受管制物质有关的”定罪。因此，移民法官关于被申请人可被驱逐出境的裁决将予维持。 命令：上诉被驳回，移民法官的裁决予以维持。