### Interim Decision #2511

MATTER OF BERKER
In Deportation Proceedings

A-11780841
Decided by Board August 2, 1976

(1) Under the provisions of the Federal 'Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. 5005, et seq.), no distinction is drawn between narcotics offenses relating to simple possession of marijuana and narcotics offenses involving more serious drug violations. For that reason, distinctions as to the relative gravity of narcotics offenses should not be made in applying the benefits of the Federal Youth.Corrections Act to immigration cases. (2) Expungement of respondent's conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 1346, under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. 5021(b)), opeAted to remove that conviction as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

CHARGE:
Orden Act of 1952—Seetiou 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11)J—Convicted of any law relating to illicit possession of marijuana

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: A. Kendall Wood, Esquire 3232 Fourth Avenue San Diego, CA 92103



### In a decision 

### dated October 30, 1975, the immigration judge found therespondent deportable as charged and ordered his deportation to Germany. The respondent has appealed from that decision. The appeal will be sustained and the proceedings will be terminated. The respondent, a native and citizen of Germany, was admitted to the 

### United States for permanent residence in 1958. On July 30, 1975 he was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California of the offense of conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent 

### to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and was sentenced pursuant to the Federal Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S. C. 5005, et seq.(Hereinafter referred to as "FYCA".) On.December 19, 1973 the imposition of sentence was suspended and the respondent was placed on probation. Prior to the expiration of the period of his probation, on August 22, 1975, the court discharged the respondent from probation and set 

### aside the respondent's conviction pursuant to the expungement provisions of FYCA. 18 U.S.C. section 5021(b). .1

725Interim Decision #2511

The immigration judge found the respondent deportable as an alien who has been convicted of a conspiracy to violate a law relating to the illicit traffic in marijuana under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Counsel for the respondent, however, contends that under our decision inMatter of Zingis, 14 L & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974), the respondent is not deportable. InZingi6 we held that the setting aside of a conviction under FYCA eliminates the conviction as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11) of the Act. I See also Mestre Morera v. INS, 462 F.2d 1030 (1 Cir. 1972). However, from dicta inMatter of Espinoza, 15 I. & N. Dec. 328 (BIA 1975), it is reasonable to infer that our holding inZingis limits recognition of expungernents under FYCA to offenses involving simple possession of marijuana. Inasmuch as the respondent was convicted of the offense ofconspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, the immigration judge held that the expungement does not wipe out the conviction as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11). Notwithstanding dicta to the contrary in Espinoza, our holding in .gintris applies to all convictions which have been set aside under the FYCA. In Zingis it is stated that the alien had been convicted of a "narcoics violation," to wit, violation of a law relating to illicit traffic in marijuana. Furthermore, in Zingis we declared that, in enacting FYCA, Congress expressed its objective as the rehabilitation of youthful offenders to enable them to become useful citizens in our society. Under FYCA no distinctions were drawn between the offense of simple possession of marijuana and offenses involving more serious drug violations. In view of the Cong:essional policy in this area, distinctions should not be made in the application of FYCA benefits in immigration cases. Any language in Espinoza-Rodriguez which suggests a contrary interpretation is hereby disapproved. We note

-

hat the interpretation ofZingis set out above is in accord with the mcst recently stated position of the Service. Accordingly, the appeal will be sustained and the proceedings will be terminated. ORDER: The appeal is sustained; the.proceedings are terminated_

1T71 Mottitr of Andrade, 14 I. & N. Dec. 651 (BIA 1974). we accorded like treatment to expungements state convictions by youths who were sentenced under a state provision similar to FYCA.

726