MATTER or L R— 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-6881251 

Decided by Board February 20, 1959 

Narcotic Violation—Finality of conviction—Commitment to California Youth 

,Authority. 

Alien found guilty by California court of narcotic violation and ordered committed to the California Youth Authority has been "convicted" within meaning of section 241(a) (11) of the 1952 act. 

CHARGE - 

Order : Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (11) IS II.S.C. 1251(a) UM—Narcotic 

conviction: Possession of heroin, in violation of section 11500 of the 

California Health and Safety Code. 

BEFORE Itik, BOARD 

Discussion: Respondent, a 20-year-old married male, a native and 

national of Mexico, last entered the United States in 1948 when he 

was admitted for permanent residence. On March 17, 1958, he was 

convicted in the Superior Court at Los Angeles, California, for 

possession of heroin in violation of section 11500, Health and Safety 

Code of the State of California. The respondent was found guilty. 

A probation report was ordered and the proceedings were continued. 

On May 6, 1958, the respondent appeared for sentencing. Probation 

was denied. Respondent was committed to the Youth Authority of 

the State of California for the term prescribed by law and was 

ordered held in the custody of the sheriff in the county jail subject 

to any orders the Authority might issue. 

The special inquiry officer found that respondent had been convicted of a narcotic violation and he ordered the respondent's deportation. Respondent appealed stating that he did not believe that 

he was subject to deportation. On August 22, 1950, we remanded 

the case to have the record show what disposition the Youth Authority had made of the respondent. The Acting Regional Commissioner, 

Southwest Regional Office, filed this motion asking for reconsideration of our decision. His position is that whatever action the Youth 

Authority will take can have no bearing on the alien's liability to 

269 
deportation since the only question to be resolved is whether the 

respondent has been convicted of a narcotic violation and this fact 

is already established by the record. At oral argument, the Service 

representative pressed the same view. (We have now been supplied 

with information that the respondent was transferred from the 

county jail to a vocational institution at Tracy, California, and that 

from there he has been transferred to the Director of Corrections 

at Soledad, California.) 

The issue is whether the respondent has been "convicted" as that 

term is understood in the immigration laws. For deportation purposes, a conviction exists where the following elements are all present: (1) there has been a judicial finding of guilt, (2) the court 

takes action which removes the case from the category of those 

which are (actually, or in theory) pending for consideration by the 

court—the court orders the defendant fined, or incarcerated or the 

court suspends sentence, or the court suspends the imposition of sentence, (3) the action of the court is considered a conviction by the 

State for at least some purpose (Hatter of 0 , 7 I. Sc N. Dec. 

539; Matter of .1 , 7 I. Sr N. Doc. 530; Matter of D , Int. Doe. 

No. 965). 1 

How does the action of the court here meet the tests? The record 

reveals that there has been a judicial declaration of guilt. This 

judicial finding of guilt was followed by an order committing respondent. The court has acted and there is nothing left for the 

court to do. After the order of commitment was entered the court, 

without more, had no jurisdiction over the respondent (People v. 

Rick, 112 C.A. 2d 410, 246 P. 2d 691). The action of the court is as 

final as if the court had given respondent a suspended sentence, or 

had suspended the imposition of sentence, or had placed respondent 

on probation rather than ordering him confined (see Arrellano-Flores 

v. Hoy, 262 F.2d 667, C.C.A. 9, 1958). The last test, which required 

that the State consider the proceeding as one resulting in a conviction, is also satisfied here. The law provides that a person who has 

been "convicted of a public offense" can be committed to the Youth 

Authority (section 1731.5, Welfare and Institutions Code; see also 

section 1771); and the courts of the State in speaking of a person 

committed to the Youth Authority in a proceeding such as this, consider him as having been "convicted of crime." A commitment to 

the Youth Authority is a judicial determination of the fact of defendant's conviction and pronouncement of sentence for the offense 

lit is to be noted that we are not concerned with whether an alien has 

been sentenced to confinement for a year or more, but merely with whether 

he has been convicted. There is no requirement in the Immigration laws that 

conviction of a narcotic violation be followed by a particular type of punishment, in order to make the alien deportable. 

270 
(see, People v. Lockwood, 146 C.A. 2d 189, 303 P. 2d 621; In re 

Herrera, 23 C. 2d 206, 113 P. 2d 345; People v. Rick, 112 C.A. 2d 

410, 246 P. 2d 691). The court took the action which is normally 

taken to inflict some obligation upon a convicted person. This action 

meets all the tests we have set forth. A conviction exists for immigration purposes. We shall, therefore, withdraw our order of August 

22, 1958, and dismiss the appeal. 

Order: It is ordered that the Board's order of August 22, 1958, 

be and the same is hereby withdrawn. 

It Is fstrth.ss. tyrtissmi that. the appeal he and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

271