MATTER OF M—S-- 

In DEPORTATION Proceedings 

A-12706474 

Decided by Board March 22, 1962 

Deportahiiity—Section 241(a)(4)—Conviction for crime committeed within five 

yearn after entry. 

Respondent entered the United States as an agricultural laborer in December 

1959; committed statutory rape on June 1, 1960; was admitted for permanent residence on October 27, 1960; and was convicted of the crime in March 

1961, resulting in a sentence to imprisonment for live years. Held: respondent is deportable under section 241(a) (4) as a person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years 

after his 1959 entry. Law and facts distinguish this case from Bonetti v. 

Rogers, 356 U.S. 691. 

CHARGE : 

Order : Act of 1952—Section 241(a) (4) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a) (4)1—Convicted 

of a crime involving moral turpitude and sentenced to confinement for year or more. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: Respondent is 38 years old, married, male, a native 

and citizen of Mexico. He is at present serving a sentence of five 

years in the State Penitentiary, Central Farm #1, Texas Department of Corrections, Sugarland, Texas, for the crime of statutory 

rape upon his 15-year-old stepdaughter committed June 1, 1960. He 

was convicted for this offense in the District Court of Hidalgo 

County, Texas, by a jury upon his plea of guilty during the March 

term, 1961. The special inquiry officer found respondent deportable 

on the charge set forth above, ordered that he be deported from the 

United States in the manner provided by law, and certified the 

case to this Board for final decision. The alien was not represented 

and requests only that he be permitted to remain in the United States, 

if possible, following his release from confinement, in order that he 

may support his United States citizen wife and two minor citizen 

children. 

The question upon which the special inquiry officer certified the 

case arises from the fact that the crime was committed by the alien 

643 
after his entry in December 1959, but before his admission for permanent residence on October 27, 1960, while his conviction did not 

occur until March 1961. in December 1959 respondent entered the 

United States as an alien agricultural laborer (bracero), in which 

he has entered several times. The offense for which he was 

convicted occurred on or about June 1, 1960, according to the indictment. The respondent returned to Mexico and applied for an 

immigration visa at the American Consulate in Monterrey, Mexico, 

on October 26, 1960. At that time he was asked if he had ever been 

arrested or convicted of any crime; he answered in the negative. He 

was also asked whether he had committed any crime. His visa application says, "No." lie was asked by the examining officer whether 

at the time of committing the crime or thereafter he felt that he had 

L - fnmitted a crime. He agreed that he had, and that he concealed the 

crime from the American consul, but said he did not think about the 

event or offense in connection with securing the immigration visa. 

He testified that he "did not think anything one way or the 

about this particular incident in relation to procuring his visa. 

He was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on 

October 27, 1960. He was arrested about the first of February 1961, 

and a child was born to his stepdaughter in March, while respondent 

was in jail. 

There is no question but that respondent is deportable under section 241(a) (4) as a person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after entry. It is 

not necessary that the "entry" referred to in the charge be respondent's last entry. The special inquiry officer is correct, of course, 

in holding that the word "entry" can refer to respondent's 1959 entry 

as an agricultural -worker. The judicial and administrative authority 

cited by the special inquiry officer is sufficient, and there is no need 

for us to add additional citations. The 1952 Act, section 101(a) (13), 

defined "entry" as any coming of an alien into the United States 

from a foreign port or place. It has long been held that so far 

as criminal grounds of deportation are concerned there is no 

obligation on the Service to - choose the last or any particular entry 

in framing the charge. The issuance of the immigrant visa at 

Monterrey„ following the commission of the crime in the United 

States of which the consul was not aware, did nothing to improve 

respondent's status as regarded the criminal charge. 

The special inquiry officer has discussed the application of 

Bonetti v. Rogers, 356 U.S. 691, to the present matter, and distinguished this case from Bonetti on the law .and the facts. We 

agree with his conclusion and would only add that in the. instant 

case the alien's actual residence began before his legal residence 

commenced, and he was living here when the ground of deportation 

644 
(or exclusion) arose. Respondent's residence here WEL3 actually con - 

tinuous in that he departed to Mexico, obtained his documents and 

immediately returned to his home in Texas. As the special inquiry 

officer has stated, this was not the case with Bonetti who, at the time 

of his admission in 1938, was neither excludable nor deportable. 

As the special inquiry officer also points out, the alien may well 

be deportable under provisions of the Act other than that set forth 

in the order. However, no other charge was brought, and the charge 

stated in the order to show cause is adequate. The decision of the 

special inquiry officer will be affirmed. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the order of the special inquiry officer 

of November 2, 1961, be and is hereby affirmed. 

645