Matter of Rico

This is an appeal from an order of the immigration judge, dated February 11, 1976, finding the applicant inadmissible under section 212(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The immigration judge ordered the applicant's exclusion and deportation from the United StaLes. The appeal will be dismissed. The applicant is a 26-year-old married male alien who is a native and

这是对移民法官1976年2月11日命令的上诉，该命令认定申请人依据《移民与国籍法》第212(a)(23)条不可入境。移民法官命令将申请人驱逐出境并递解出美国。上诉将被驳回。 申请人是26岁已婚男性外国人，为墨西哥国民和

citizen of Mexico. He was originally admitted to the United States for permanent residence on September 26, 1966. On September 19, 1975, the applicant applied for admission to the United States as a returning resident alien (commuter). The applicant was detained for an exclusion hearing on the ground that on September 19, 1975, he attempted to smuggle 162 pounds' of marihuana into the United States in violation of law. On October 15, 1975, the applicant was served with an official notice (Form 1-122) which informed him that he appeared to come within the exclusion provisions of section 212(a)(23) of the Act. He received three subsequent hearing notices dated October 17 and 30 and November 19, 1975. A copy of a Service Form 1-94 (parole edition) is of record. That document shows that the applicant was paroled into the United States pending his criminal prosecution and exclusion hearing. The first hearing was conducted by Immigration Judge Jay Segal on December 8, 1975. A continued hearing was conducted by Immigration Judge Reece B. Robertson on February 11, 1976. Upon reviewing the transcript of the second hearing, we are satisfied that the immigration judge complied with the procedural requirements of 8 C.F.R. 242.8(b) which pertain to the substitution of immigration judges. See Matter of POW°, Interim Decision 2326 (BIA 1974). The record reveals that the applicant is a permanent resident alien who commuted from his residence in Agua Prieta, Mexico, to his place of employment in Sierra Vista, Arizona, for a period of about two and one-half years prior to September 19, 1975. On that date, he attempted to enter the United States at the port of entry in Douglas, Arizona. He was stopped by a motor vehicle inspection team composed of Fred D. Powell, a United States Customs Inspector, and Arthur R. Waddell, a Border Patrol Agent. The applicant's vehicle, a 1965 Ford Ranchero, was inspected and was found to contain 77 bricks (162 pounds) of marihuana in concealed compartments. A subsequent laboratory analysis performed by the Drug Enforcement Administration labora- tory in Dallas, Texas, confirmed that the bricks were marihuana. At the time of his apprehension, the applicant was in possession of an Alien Registration Receipt Card (Form 1-151) and Commuter Status Card (Form 1-178). On September 19, 1975, the Border Patrol officials contacted the special agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration located in Doug- las, Arizona, and advised them of the seizure of the marihuana in the possession of the applicant. Several special agents of the Drug En- forcement Administration investigated the seizure, took custody of the marihuana and the applicant, and transported the applicant to their office in Douglas for interrogation. The applicant was advised of his rights and was requested to make a statement concerning the marihuana that was found in his automobile. The applicant initially told the special

墨西哥公民。他最初于1966年9月26日获准进入美国作为永久居民。1975年9月19日，申请人作为返回居民外国人（通勤者）申请进入美国。申请人被拘留以进行驱逐出境听证，理由是他于1975年9月19日试图违反法律将162磅大麻走私进入美国。1975年10月15日，申请人被送达正式通知（Form 1-122），该通知告知他看来属于该法第212(a)(23)条的驱逐出境条款范围。他随后收到了日期为1975年10月17日、10月30日和11月19日的三份听证通知。记录中有服务局Form 1-94（假释版）的副本。该文件显示申请人被假释进入美国，等待其刑事起诉和驱逐出境听证。第一次听证由移民法官Jay Segal于1975年12月8日进行。续行听证由移民法官Reece B. Robertson于1976年2月11日进行。在审查第二次听证的记录后，我们确信移民法官遵守了8 C.F.R. 242.8(b)中关于更换移民法官的程序要求。参见Matter of POW°，临时决定2326（BIA 1974）。 记录显示，申请人是永久居民外国人，在1975年9月19日之前约两年半期间，自其在墨西哥Agua Prieta的住所通勤至其在亚利桑那州Sierra Vista的工作地点。在该日，他试图在亚利桑那州Douglas的入境口岸进入美国。他被由美国海关检查员Fred D. Powell和边境巡逻探员Arthur R. Waddell组成的机动车检查队拦停。申请人的车辆，一辆1965年Ford Ranchero，经检查被发现隐藏隔间内装有77块（162磅）大麻。随后由德克萨斯州Dallas的毒品执法管理局实验室进行的实验室分析确认这些块状物为大麻。在其被捕时，申请人持有外国人登记收据卡（Form 1-151）和通勤者身份卡（Form 1-178）。 1975年9月19日，边境巡逻官员联系了位于亚利桑那州Douglas的毒品执法管理局特工，并告知他们在申请人身上查获大麻的情况。几名毒品执法管理局特工调查了此次查获，接管了大麻和申请人，并将申请人运至其在Douglas的办公室进行讯问。申请人被告知其权利，并被要求就在其汽车中发现的大麻作出陈述。申请人最初告诉特工

agents that he did not know that the vehicle contained marihuana; that the vehicle that he drove to the border did not belong to him; that the vehicle was loaned to him by a person in Mexico that he only knew as "Chava"; that his own vehicle was damaged by Chava's vehicle in an accident in Mexico; that the person known as "Chava" lent him the 1965 Ford Ranchero so that he would be able to go to work while his own vehicle was being repaired; and that he was only in possession of the Ford Ranchero for one day. At the hearing, a special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administra- tion testified that during the applicant's interrogation he was advised by the special agents that they did not believe his explanation and that if he was lying they would not talk to him further. The special agent further testified that following their advice to the applicant, he told the special agents that he would tell the truth. In his second story, he told them that he was offered $200 to drive the Ford Ranchero from Mexico to a particular place in Douglas, Arizona; and that he knew something was in the truck, but did not know exactly what it was. The applicant offered to provide information concerning other persons who traffic in drugs in that border area. However, he stated to the special agents that he would not give them information concerning his arrangement to drive the Ford Ranchero across the border because he feared that such a revelation would jeopardize his life. Another special agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration also testified that he was present during the interrogation when the appli- cant changed his story and revealed that he was offered $200 to drive the Ford Ranchero across the border. Border Patrol Agent Waddell and Customs Inspector Powell testified that they had observed the applicant crossing the border in a Ford Ranchero on a number of days prior to September 19, 1975, the date of the marihuana seizure. The applicant testified at his hearing as to his innocent involvement in the attempted marihuana smuggling and maintained his initial position that the Ford Ranchero was lent to him following an automobile acci- dent in which his own automobile was damaged. He denied changing* story during his interrogation by special agents of the Drug Enforce- ment Administration. Several witnesses, including his wife, testified in his behalf. We note that on September 19, 1975, a criminal complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the applicant imported 162 pounds of marihuana into the United States on September 19, 1975, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 960(a)(1). copy of an Order for Dismissal issued by the same court on October 9, 1975, is of record. That document indicates that the criminal complaint against the applicant was dismissed. The reason for the dismissal is not shown in the record.

们他不知道车辆载有大麻；他开至边境的车辆不属于他；该车辆是由他在墨西哥只认识为“Chava”的人借给他的；他自己的车辆在墨西哥的一次事故中被Chava的车辆损坏；名为“Chava”的人将1965年Ford Ranchero借给他，以便在他自己的车辆修理期间能够上班；并且他仅持有该Ford Ranchero一天。 在听证中，毒品执法管理局的一名特工作证称，在申请人的讯问期间，特工们告知他他们不相信他的解释，并且如果他在撒谎，他们就不会再与他交谈。该特工进一步作证称，在向申请人作出上述告知后，他告诉特工们他会说实话。在他的第二个说法中，他告诉他们有人给他200美元让他将Ford Ranchero从墨西哥开到亚利桑那州Douglas的特定地点；并且他知道卡车里有东西，但不知道具体是什么。申请人提出可以提供有关该边境地区其他毒品贩运者的信息。然而，他向特工们表示，他不会提供有关他安排将Ford Ranchero开过边境的信息，因为他担心这样的泄露会危及他的生命。 毒品执法管理局的另一名特工也作证称，在讯问期间申请人在场，当时申请人改变了说法并透露有人给他200美元让他将Ford Ranchero开过边境。边境巡逻探员Waddell和海关检查员Powell作证称，他们在1975年9月19日即查获大麻之日前的数天里观察到申请人驾驶一辆Ford Ranchero越过边境。 申请人在其听证中就其无辜卷入走私大麻未遂一事作证，并坚持其最初的说法，即Ford Ranchero是在其自己的汽车受损的一次汽车事故后借给他的。他否认在毒品执法管理局特工讯问期间改变*说法。包括其妻子在内的几名证人为他作证。 我们注意到，1975年9月19日，一份刑事控告被提交至美国亚利桑那州地区法院，指控申请人于1975年9月19日违反21 U.S.C. 952(a)和960(a)(1)将162磅大麻进口至美国。记录中有同一法院于1975年10月9日签发的驳回令副本。该文件表明针对申请人的刑事控告已被驳回。驳回的原因未在记录中显示。

Section 212(a)(23) of the Act provides that an alien shall be ineligible for a visa and excluded from admission into the United States if he ". . . has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation relating to the illicit p ossession 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, dispensing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose of the manufacture, production, compound- ing, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importa- tion, or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, marihuana, or any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves, or isonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining opiate; or any alien who the consular officer or immigration officers know or have reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any of the aforementioned drugs." The applicant argues that he is not within that class of aliens who are excludable from the United States under the provisions of section 212(a)(23) of the Act. The pertinent part of this section is that part which provides. ... or any alien who the consular officer or immigration officers know or have reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any of the aforementioned drugs.

该法第212(a)(23)条规定，如果外国人“...曾因违反任何有关非法持有或贩运麻醉药品或大麻的法律或法规，或违反任何有关或管制鸦片、古柯叶、海洛因、大麻或鸦片或古柯叶的任何盐类衍生物或制剂，或异尼哌卡因或任何成瘾性或维持成瘾性阿片的征税、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，而被定罪，或共谋违反上述法律或法规，或领事官员或移民官员知道或有理由相信是或曾经是上述任何毒品的非法贩运者的任何外国人”，则其无资格获得签证并被驱逐出美国，不得入境。 申请人主张他不属于依据该法第212(a)(23)条应被驱逐出美国的那类外国人。本条的相关部分是规定以下内容的部分： ...或领事官员或移民官员知道或有理由相信是或曾经是上述任何毒品的非法贩运者的任何外国人。

A criminal conviction is unnecessary to establish a basis for exclusion under this provision. The applicant contends the "illicit trafficker" pro- vision of section 212(a)(23) does not include marihuana as one of the specified illicit drugs, and that, therefore, that provision is inapplicable to the applicant. Prior to July 14, 1960, sections 212(a)(23) and 241(a)(11) of the Act set forth grounds for the exclusion or deportation from the United States of aliens convicted of narcotic law violations. Since marihuana is not a narcotic drug, the courts held in various decisions that convictions for illicit possession of or traffic in marihuana did not bring the alien within the immigration law which required the exclusion or deportation of one convicted of illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs. To overcome the effect of these decisions, Congress amended the immigration law in 1960 to provide for the deportation of All alien convicted of illicit posses- sion of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana.' The legislative history of this amendment clearly establishes that the concern that Congress had with marihuana violations was as great as its concern with violations of law relating to narcotic drugs. Congress expressed the view that violation of laws relating to marihuana are but the forerunners of viola- tions of other laws relating to dangerous and more addiction-forming

根据本条款，确立排除依据并不需要刑事定罪。申请人主张第212(a)(23)条的“非法贩运者”条款不包括大麻作为所列非法毒品之一，因此该条款不适用于申请人。 在1960年7月14日之前，该法第212(a)(23)条和第241(a)(11)条规定了因违反麻醉品法律而被定罪的alien被排除出境或递解出境的理由。由于大麻不是麻醉品，法院在多项判决中认定，因非法持有或贩运大麻而被定罪并不使该alien落入要求将因非法持有或贩运麻醉品而被定罪者排除出境或递解出境的移民法范围。为克服这些判决的影响，国会于1960年修订了移民法，规定所有因非法持有或贩运麻醉品或大麻而被定罪的alien应予递解出境。'该修订的立法历史明确表明，国会对大麻违法行为的关注与其对违反麻醉品法律的关注同样重大。国会认为，违反有关大麻的法律不过是违反其他有关危险且更易成瘾的

Interim Decision #2576

临时决定第2576号

narcotics. Congress also pointed out that the ease with which marihuana could be obtained is undoubtedly one of the leading causes of increased incidence of juvenile delinquency and it stressed the urgent necessity for the enactment of this legislation. 2 See generally Matter ofAmiet, 14 I. & N. Dec. 146 (BIA 1972). In 21 U.S.C. 812(b), marihuana is listed as a controlled substance (Section (c) of Schedule I). Marihuana is also defined 21 U.S.C. 802(15) under the general heading of Drug Abuse-Prevention, Control (Chapter 13). Further, in S U.S.C. 252(d), marihuana is listed as one of the drugs that shall be deemed to be misbranded under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act unless the label includes the statement "Warring—May be Habit Forming." In a recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the court affirmed this Board's decision excluding an alien for illegal traffick- ing in hashish under section 212(a)(23) of the Act. The court pointed ont in its decision that the pertinent language clearly refers back to the earlier inclusion of marihuana as one of the drugs subject to the section. The court also held that marihuana and hashish are derivatives of a common snnrce and that marihuana is sufficiently general int scope to include hashish in the context of applying section 212(a)(23) of the Act. See Harnid v. INS, No. 75-1110 (9 Cir. July 14, 1976). In light of the legislative history reflecting the position of Congress with regard to marijuana, and in view of the aforementioned 'interpretation of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, we conclude that an illicit trafficker of marihuana comes within the exclusion provisions of section 212 of the Act. In his appeal, the applicant brings to our attention the dismissal of the criminal complaint against the respondent for importation of marihuana. He submits that the criminal charge was made upon the same facts which form the basis for these proceedings; that the criminal charge was dismissed in the United States District Court because of insufficient evidence; and that the exclusion order against the applicant should be "reversed" in view of these events. We point out that the reason for the dismissal of the criminal complaint against the applicant is not contained in any official document in the record. Further, the criminal action against the applicant was a separate judicial matter, and that our administrative decision in these exclusion proceedings shall be predi- cated upon a review of the evidence of record and the application of the appropriate immigration law. Unlike the criminal judicial proceeding where a defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, an administrative finding of excludability must be based upon reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. See Mason v. Tillinghast, 27 F.2d

麻醉品的法律的先兆。国会还指出，大麻易于获得无疑是青少年犯罪发生率上升的主要成因之一，并强调迫切需要制定此项立法。2 参见Matter of Amiet，14 I. & N. Dec. 146（BIA 1972）的一般论述。 在21 U.S.C. 812(b)中，大麻被列为受管制物质（附表一(c)项）。大麻也在21 U.S.C. 802(15)中在“药物滥用——预防、控制”（第13章）的总标题下被定义。此外，在5 U.S.C. 252(d)中，大麻被列为根据《食品、药品和化妆品法》应被视为贴错标签的药物之一，除非标签包含“警告——可能成瘾”的声明。 在第九巡回上诉法院最近的一项判决中，法院维持了本委员会根据该法第212(a)(23)条以非法贩运hashish为由将一名alien排除出境的裁决。法院在其判决中指出，相关措辞明确回指先前将大麻列为受该条约束的毒品之一。法院还认定，大麻和hashish源自同一来源，且在适用该法第212(a)(23)条的语境下，大麻的范围足够宽泛以包括hashish。参见Hamid v. INS，第75-1110号（9 Cir. 1976年7月14日）。鉴于反映国会关于大麻立场的立法历史，并鉴于第九巡回上诉法院的上述解释，我们认定大麻的非法贩运者属于该法第212条排除条款的范围。 在其上诉中，申请人提请我们注意针对respondent进口大麻的刑事控告被驳回一事。他提出，刑事指控是基于构成这些程序基础相同的事实；刑事指控因证据不足而在美国联邦地区法院被驳回；鉴于这些事件，针对申请人的排除令应被“撤销”。我们指出，针对申请人的刑事控告被驳回的原因并未载于记录中的任何官方文件。此外，针对申请人的刑事诉讼是独立的司法事项，而我们在这些排除程序中的行政决定应基于对记录证据的审查和适当移民法的适用。与刑事司法程序要求被告必须被排除合理怀疑地认定有罪不同，关于可排除性的行政认定必须基于合理、实质性和有证明力的证据。参见Mason v. Tillinghast，27 F.2d

580 (1 Cir. 1928); O'Connell v. Ward, 126 F.2d 615 (1 Cir. 1942). In this connection, we note that section 212(a)(23) of the Act provides that a ground for exclusion exists if an . . . immigration officer knows or has reason to believe . . . that an alien_ is an illicit trafficker. We find that the applicant attempted to cross the border with a large quantity of marihuana concealed in his motor vehicle. We also find that his testimony as to why he happened to be driving the motor vehicle which contained marihuana on September 19, 1975, is not plausible. We further find that he did not tell the truth at his hearing when he testified that he had only driven the Ford Ranchero for one day preceding his apprehension. The testimony of the Border Patrol Agent and the Cus- toms Inspector establish that the applicant had driven the Ford Ran- chero back and forth across the border on several occasions prior to September 19, 1975, the date of his apprehension. The applicant changed his story under interrogation by authorities and admitted being offered $200 to drive the Ford Ranchero across the border and knowing that "something" was in that vehicle. These prehearing admissions contradict his original prehearing explanation and his testimony at this hearing. Under the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the applicant's testimony was not credible. In light of his lack of credibility, his offer to furnish information concerning drug traffickers, and his prehearing admission that he was offered money to drive his automobile across the border, we find that there is sufficient reason to believe that the applicant knew or had reason to know that marihuana was concealed in his automobile. We further find that the applicant was a knowing and conscious participant or conduit in an attempt to smuggle marihuana into the United States. This activity brings him within the provisions' of section 212(a)(23) of the Act relating to "illicit trafficker." Cf. Matter of 7 I. & N. Dec. 675 (BIA 1958). It is no defense that the applicant has only committed one transgression. The statutory refer- ence to an illegal trafficker does not necessarily entail proof of organized continuous trade in marihuana. In Matter of P—, 5 L & N. Dec. 190 {BIA 1953), an alien who on a single occasion bought narcotics for resale in the United States was deemed an illicit trafficker within the meaning of section 212(a)(22) of the Act_ In this case, the applicant attempted to smuggle 162 pounds of marihuana ate the United States. In view of such a large quantity of marihuana, we infer that it was not intended for personal use. We conclude, therefore, that the marihuana was to be used in "traffic" and that the applicant is an illicit trafficker as contemplated by the statute. Inasmuch as the applicant is an alien commuter, he does make a imeaningful departure when he leaves the United States. Hence, the applicant does not come within the ambit of Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374

580（1 Cir. 1928）；O'Connell v. Ward，126 F.2d 615（1 Cir. 1942）。就此而言，我们注意到该法第212(a)(23)条规定，如果……移民官员知道或有理由相信……某alien是非法贩运者，则存在排除出境的理由。 我们认定，申请人试图在其机动车内藏匿大量大麻越过边境。我们还认定，他关于为何在1975年9月19日恰好驾驶载有大麻的机动车的证词不可信。我们进一步认定，他在听证时作证称其在被捕前仅驾驶该Ford Ranchero一天，并非如实陈述。边境巡逻队探员和海关检查员的证词证明，申请人在1975年9月19日（其被捕之日）之前曾多次驾驶该Ford Ranchero往返越过边境。申请人在当局讯问下改变了说法，并承认有人向他提供200美元让其驾驶该Ford Ranchero越过边境，且他知道该车内有“东西”。这些听证前的承认与其最初的听证前解释及其在本次听证中的证词相矛盾。鉴于上述情况，我们认定申请人的证词不可信。鉴于其缺乏可信度、其提出提供有关毒品贩运者的信息，以及其听证前承认有人向其提供金钱以驾驶其汽车越过边境，我们认定有充分理由相信申请人知道或有理由知道其汽车内藏有大麻。 我们进一步认定，申请人是将大麻走私进入美国的企图中的知情且自觉的参与者或渠道。该活动使其落入该法第212(a)(23)条关于“非法贩运者”的条款范围。参见Matter of 7 I. & N. Dec. 675（BIA 1958）。申请人仅实施了一次违法行为并不构成抗辩。法条对非法贩运者的提及并不必然要求证明有组织地持续进行大麻交易。在Matter of P—，5 I. & N. Dec. 190（BIA 1953）中，一名alien在一次场合购买麻醉品以供在美国转售，被认定为该法第212(a)(22)条意义上的非法贩运者。在本案中，申请人试图将162磅大麻走私进入美国。鉴于如此大量的大麻，我们推断其并非供个人使用。因此，我们认定该大麻将用于“贩运”，且申请人是法规所设想的非法贩运者。 由于申请人是alien通勤者，他离开美国时并不构成有意义的离境。因此，申请人不属于Rosenberg v. Fleuti，374