Interim Decision #2561 

MATTER OF WIDT.P 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-20535964 

Decided by Board March 2, 1977 

(1) Respondent conceded deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and 

Nationality Act as a nonimmigrant who remained beyond the authorized period of 

admission. The only issue on appeal involves respondent's application for adjustment of 

status under section 245 of the Immigration and Mationality Act which was opposed by 

the Service on the ground that respondent was inadmissible to the United States under 

section 212(a)(23) of the Act by reason of his conviction in England for illicit possession 

of marihuana. 

(2) Respondent was convicted of having a dangerous drug, cannabis resin, in his possession without being duly authorized, in violation of Regulation 3, Dangerous Drugs (No. 

2) Regulations 1964, and Section 12 Dangerous Drugs Act of 1965, a statute which 

makes lack of knowledge that a prohibited substance is in one's possession irrelevant to 

the offense. See Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2 Cir. 1975). 

(3) Since Congress did not intend to impose the harsh consequences of exclusion upon an 

individual convicted of possession of drugs under a foreign law that made guilty 

knowledge irrelevant to the offense, the decision of the immigration judge granting 

respondent's section 245 application was correct. 

CHARGE: 

Order. Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) f8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)j —Nonimmigrant—remained 

longer 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Dennis M. Mokai, Esquire 

5680 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 

Los Angeles, California 90036 

BY: Ifilhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Torrington, Maniatis, and Applernan, Board Members 

In a decision dated February 18, 1978, after finding the respondent 

deportable as charged, the immigration judge ordered that the respondent's application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

Imniigration and Nationality Act be granted subject to the condition 

that no derogatory information be revealed in the administrative processing of the application. The Service has appealed from that decision. 

The appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent, a native and citizen of Great Britian, admitted the 

truth of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and has 

125 
Interim Decision #2561 

conceded deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Act as a nonimmigrant who remained beyond the authorized period of admission. The 

only issue on appeal involves the respondent's application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act. 

The immigration judge found that the respondent was statutorily 

eligible for section 245 relief and merited a favorable exercise of discretion. The Service, however, opposed the grant on the ground that the 

respondent is inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(23) 

of the Act by reason of a conviction in England for the illicit possession 

of marihuana. 

The respondent admits that he was in fact convicted of illicit possession of marihuana. The immigration judge, however, concluded that the 

conviction involved in the present case did not subject the respondent to 

the exclusion provisions of the Act. In so holding, the immigration judge 

relied on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Second Circuit in Lennon v. INS,527 F.2d 187 (2 Cir. 1975). 

In Lennon the court held, as did we in Matter of Lennon, Interim 

Decision 2304 (BIA 1974), rev'd, Lennon v. INS, supra, that Congress 

did not intend to impose the harsh consequences of exclusion upon an 

individual convicted of possession of drugs under a foreign law that 

made guilty knowledge irrelevant. However, in its analysis of the 

British statute involved, the court reached a conclusion different from 

ours: it held that the particular statute imposed absolute liability for 

' unauthorized possession of drugs, and it vacated the order of deportation. 

The record of conviction in the present case indicates that the respondent was convicted of having a dangerous drug, cannabis resin, in his 

possession without being duly authorized in violation of Regulation 3, 

Dangerous Drugs (No. 2) Regulations 1964, and Section 12 Dangerous 

Drugs Act 1965, the statutory provisions involved in. the Lennon case 

(Ex. 3). We have decided to follow the Second Circuit's interpretation of 

the statute involved, specifically, that lack of knowledge that a prohibited substance is in use's possession is irrelevant to the offense as set 

out in the British statute. 

In so holding, we note that, after the Notice of Appeal was filed in the 

present easy, the Service decided to adopt the court's decision in Lennon with respect to convictions for "innocent" possession under the 

United Kingdom's Dangerous Drugs Act of 1965. See Memorandum to 

Regional Commissioners from Deputy Commissioner, October 29, 1976. 

We conclude that the immigration judge's decision granting the application for adjustment of status under section 245 of the Act was correct. 

Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

126