Interim Decision #2678 

MATTER OF CARRILLO 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A.-31073471 

Decided by Board November 28, 1978 

An alien convicted of "Unlawful Carrying of a Firearm during the Commission of a 

Felony" (18 U.S.C. 924(c)) is not deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11), even though the underlying felony is the 

illicit possession of heroin, since 18 U.S.C. 924(c) is not "a law . . . relating to the illicit 

possession of a narcotic drug." Castaneda de Esper v.1NS, 557 F.2d 79 (6 Cir. 1977) and 

Blotter of Velasco, Interim Decision 2601 (BIA 1977) followed. Matter of Chang, 

Interim Decision 2550 (BIA 1977) distinguished. 

CHARGES: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. 1251 (a)(11)J—Convicted of any law 

relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotics 

Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(4) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)]—Convicted of a crime 

involving moral turpitude committed within five years after 

entry and sentenced to confinement for a year or more 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: David E. Marcus, Esquire 

1221 State Street 

P. 0. Box 1631 

El Centro, California 92243 

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Moniatis, Maguire, and Farb, Board Members. Concurring 

Opinion: Appleman, Board Member_ 

In a decision dated July 22, 1976, the immigration judge found the 

respondent deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11), as an alien who had been convicted under a law relating to the illicit possession of narcotics. The 

respondent was found to be ineligible for any form of relief from deportation, and he was ordered deported to Mexico. He has now appealed, 

arguing that his conviction was not under a law relating to the illicit 

possession of narcotics. The appeal will be sustained. 

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the 

'Waited States as a lawful permanent resident on March 12, 1971. On 

April 19, 1976, he was convicted in the United States District Court for 

the District of Arizona upon a plea of guilty to violation of 18 U.S.C. 

924(c), "Unlawful Carrying of a Firearm during the Commission of a 

625 
Interim Decision #2678 

Felony" 1 , to wit, possession of heroin with intent to distribute (21 

841(a)(1) and (b)). 

An Order to Show Cause was issued on June 23, 1976, charging the 

respondent with deportability under sections 241(a)(4) and 241(a)(11) of 

the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4) and 1251(a)(11). 2At the deportation hearing on July 22, 1976, the Service trial attorney conceded (Transcript p. 

14) and the immigration judge found that the Service had not met its 

burden of establishing that the respondent was deportable under section 241(a)(4). However, he found that, since the underlying felony upon 

which the respondent's conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) had been 

based was the illicit possession of heroin, the respondent had been 

convicted under "a law . . . relating to the illicit possession of a narcotic 

drug . . . ." He therefore found that the respondent was deportable 

under section 241(a)(11). 

In Matter of Velasco, Interim Decision 2601 (BIA 1977), we held that 

a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 4 for misprision of the felony of illicit 

possession of marihuana was not a conviction under a law "relating to the 

illicit possession of . . . narcotic drugs . . . ." Relying upon the holding 

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Castaneda 

de Esper v. INS, 557 F.2d 79 (6 Cir. 1977), we declined to interpret a 

conviction for misprision to incorporate the underlying narcotic-related 

felony for the purposes of section 241(a)(11) of the Act. In Castaneda de 

Esper v. INS, supra, the court held that when a criminal statute "does 

not by its language indicate [that] it was contemplated to be a 'narcotic 

law'," and historically has constituted a "criminal offense separate and 

distinct from the [underlying] felony," such a statute is not a "law 

relating to . . . narcotic drugs . . . ." 

The respondent was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 924(e) for the unlawful 

carrying of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Like the 

misprision statute involved in Castaneda de Esper v. INS, supra, and 

Matter of Velasco, supra, 18 U.S.C. 924(c) is not by its terms a "narcotic law." Castaneda de Esper, supra, at 8. Rather, a conviction under 18 

U.S.C. 924(c) may be based upon any underlying felonious act.' Siirsi18 U.S.C. 9240 states, in pertinent part: "Whoever— (1) uses a firearm to coxrarnit 

any felony for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, or (2) carries a 

&rearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony for which be may be prosecuted Ili 

a court of the United States shall . . . be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less 

than one year nor more than ten years." 

2 Under section 241(a)(4), an alien is deportable who is convicted of a crime involving 

moral turpitude committed within five years after entry and who is sentenced to confinement for a year or more. Under section 241(a)(11), in pertinent part, an alien is deportable 

who has been convicted of a violation of "any law . . . relating to the illicit possession 

of . narcotic drugs . . . ." 

Cf. Matter of Chang, Interim Decision 2550 (ZIA 1977), where we held that, since 01 

of a 843(b) (unlawful use of a communication facility to facilitate the commission 

626 
Interim Decision #2678 

larly, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony is an 

offense separate and distinct from the underlying felony. United States 

v. Williams, 523 F.2d 1203 (5 Cir. 1975); United States v. Ramirez, 482 

F.2d 807 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1070 (1973). Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the underlying felony may, in a particular 

case, be a narcotic-related offense, we find that 18 U.S.C. 924(c) itself is 

not a "law relating to the illicit possession of . . . narcotic drugs . . . ." 

Accordingly, the respondent's conviction under that statute does not 

give rise to his deportability under section 24I(a)(11) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. The appeal will be sustained, and the proceedings 

will be terminated. 

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, and the proceedings are terminated. 

CONCURRING OPINION: Irving A. Appleman, Board Member. 

I am in agreement with the majority opinion with respect to the 

narcotics charge. The charge based on conviction of a crime involving 

moral turpitude was not sustained by the immigration judge and no 

cross appeal was filed by the Service to preserve the charge. However, 

were that charge before us, I would be disposed to question the summary disposition given it by the immigration judge. 

This alien was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) of unlawful carrying 

of a firearm during commission of a felony "as charged in Count 2 of 

the Indictment." Count 3 of the indictment charged the violation occurred during "commission of the offense of possessing with intent to 

distribute heroin." This type of statute and conviction might reasonably 

seem to require an examination of the felony for which the firearm was 

being carried—not for purposes of the narcotics charge, for the reasons 

noted in the majority decision, but to determine the turpitudinous or 

nonturpitudinous nature of the principal offense. See U.S. ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F.2d 757 (2 Cir. 1933); U.S. ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 

51 F.2d 1022 (2 Cir. 1931); Bisaillan v. Hogan, 257 F.2d 435, 437 (9 

Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 872 (1958); Matter of S—, 2 I. & N. Dec. 

559, 570 (A.G. 1947) (manslaughter); Matter of R—, 1 I. & N. Dec. 540 

(BIA 1943) (burglary Scl degree); Matter of R—P—, 4 I. & N. Dec. 607 

MIA 1952) (contributing to the delinquency of a minor); Matter of W—, 

4 I. & N. Dec. 241 (BIA 1951) (unlawful entry of a building); Matter of 

N—, 8 I. & N. Dec. 466 (BIA 1959) (malicious mischief); Matter of 

felony) makes specific and exclusive reference to subsections I and II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, Pub. L. 91-518, Title II §101,84 Stat. 1242 

(1970), a conviction under that statute constitutes a conviction within the ambit of aectiort 

212(a)(23) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

627 
Interim Decision 42678 

McNaugh,ton, Interim Decision 2663 (BIA 1978) (conspiracy); cf. Matter 

of Sloan, 12 I. & N.. Dec. 840 (BIA 1966, A.G. 1968) ("variant" rule). 

Since the issue is not before us it needs neither elaboration nor 

resolution at this time. 

628