Interim Decision #2490 

rot 

MATTER OP LIMA 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-11408079 

Decided by Board April 16, 1976 

(1) Respondent was convicted of the unlawful possession of marijuana in violation of 

section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code of California. Subsequently, the California 

court ordered that respondent's record of arrest and conviction, and other official 

records in the case, including all records resulting in the criminal conviction be sealed 

pursuant to section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code, and also ordered that the 

charges be dismissed pursuant to section 1203.4 of the California Penal Code. 

(2) The sealing of respondent's record of arrest and conviction of marijuana posseanion 

under section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code eliminated the conviction for possession of marijuana as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act. 

(3) Matter of Andrade, 14 1. & N. Dec. 651 (DIA 1974) followed. 

CHARGE: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(11) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(11)3—Violation of a law 

relating to illicit possession of marijuana. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Marilyn Hall Patel, Esquire 

220 Bush Street 

San Francisco, California 94104 

This case is before us on certification from an order of the immigration 

judge terminating deportation proceedings. The decision of the immigration judge will be affirmed. 

The respondent is a 25-year-old native of the Azores Islands and 

citizen of Portugal who was admitted to the United States for permanent residence on December 19, 1957. On August 30, 1971,. in the 

Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, 

the respondent was convicted of the unlawful possession of a quantity of 

marijuana, a misdemeanor, in violation of Section 11530 of the Health 

and Safety Code of California. The California Court ordered that the 

imposition of sentence be suspended for a period of three years, and that 

the defendant be placed on probation for that period. The respondent 

did not appeal the conviction nor did he move for a new trial. 

On January 28, 1974, the Service obtained a correct copy of the 

661 
Interim Decision #2490 

original record of respondent's conviction from the County Clerk and 

Clerk of the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San 

Joaquin. On September 17, 1974, the district director issued an order to 

show cause against the respondent on the basis of his criminal conviction 

for marijuana possession. 

Under section 241(4(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, an 

alien in the United States is deportable if, at any time after entry, he 

has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or 

regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs 

or marijuana. 

On September 27, 1974, the respondent petitioned the Superior Court 

of California for an order sealing the record of his criminal conviction. 

On September 30, 1974, the California court ordered that respondent's 

records of arrest and conviction and other official records in the case, 

including all records resulting in the criminal conviction be sealed pursuant to Section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code. On September 30, 

1974, the - c ourt also issued a separate Order of Dismissal pursuant to 

Section 1202.4 of the California Penal Code which substituted a plea of 

"not guilty" for the respondent's previous plea of "guilty", and dismissed 

the accusation against him. 

At the hearing, trial counsel sought to have a copy of respondent's 

record of conviction admitted into evidence. Counsel for respondent 

objected to the admission of the record on the grounds that it was sealed 

by the Superior Court of the State of California, and that therefore, it 

could not be used in a deportation proceeding. The copy of the record of 

conviction was marked Exhibit 3 for identification and was entered into 

the record. 

In a decision dated February 7, 1975, the immigration judge found 

that the respondent was not deportable as charged. He concluded that 

the California Superior Court order which sealed the record of respondent's arrest and conviction of possession of marijuana falls within the 

ambit of Matter of Zingis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 621 (BIA. 1974) and Matter of 

Andrade, 14 I. & N. Dec. 651 (BIA. 1974). The immigration judge 

terminated the proceedings and certified the case to us. 

The issue before us is whether the sealing of respondent's record of 

conviction under Section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code can operate to eliminate the conviction as a basis for deportation under section 

241(a)(11) of the Act. 

On the date that respondent's offense was committed, February '7, 

1971, Section 1203.45(a) of the California Penal Code provided as follows: 

In any case in which a person was under the age of 21 years at the time of commission of 

a misdemeanor and is eligible for, or has previously received, the relief provided by 

Section 1203.4 or 1203.4a, such person, in a proceeding under Section 1203.4 or 1203.4a, 

662 
Interim Decision #2490 

or a separated proceeding, may petition the court for an order sealing the record of 

conviction and other official records in the case, including records of arrests resulting in 

the criminal proceeding and records relating to other offenses charged in the accusatory 

pleading, whether defendant was acquitted or charges were dismissed. If the court finds 

that such person was under the age of 21 at the time of the commission of the 

misdemeanor, and is eligible for relief under Section 1203.4 or 1203.4a or has previously 

received such relief, it may issue its order granting the relief prayed for. Thereafter 

such conviction, arrest, or other proceeding shall be deemed not to have occurred, and 

the petitioner may answer accordingly any question relating to their occurrence.', 

Section 1203.45(d) provides as a general rule that the provisions for 

sealing a record of arrest and conviction do not apply to a person 

convicted of more than one offense. 

The record reveals that respondent was 20 years old at the time he 

committed the misdemeanor offense, and that he had no prior criminal 

convictions. We also note that respondent obtained an expungernent of 

the record of his conviction pursuant to Section 1203.4 of the California 

Code. 

It appears that the California legislature, by enacting Section 1203 

.45, intended to provide a means for elimiriating or ameliorating a life 

long stigma that may result when a youthful offender is convicted of a 

single misdemeanor. Under Section 1203.45, a state agency or subagency may not maintain the record of conviction which has been sealed, 

and such a record may not be used in a subsequent administrative or 

judicial proceeding within the state of California. The legal effect is 

that, upon the sealing of the record by order of the California court, the 

arrest, conviction and all other proceedings related to the offense are 

forever treated as if they did not occur. Also by the express language of 

the statute, the individual whose record has been sealed, may answer 

inquiries concerning his arrest and conviction as if they never occurred. 

A single statutory exception exists in the instance of a defamation action 

or proceeding. 2 

In Matter of Zingis, 14 L & N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974), we held that the 

setting aside of a narcotics conviction pursuant to the provisions of the 

Federal Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. 5021(b)) operates to elimi8ection 1203.45 of the California Penal Code was amended in 1072, after respondent's 

conviction, to change the age for which relief could be sought from 21 to 18. This 

amendment does not apply to persons who committed misdemeanor offenses prior to 

March 7, 1973, and who were under 21 years of age at the time of the commission of the 

offenses. 

2Section 1203.45(f) of the California Penal Code provides that: 

In any action or proceeding based upon defamation, a court, upon a showing of good 

cause, may order any records sealed under this section to be opened and admitted into 

evidence. The records shall be confidential and shall be available for inspection only by 

the court, jury, parties, counsel for the parties, and any other person who is authorized 

by the court to inspect them. Upon the judgment in the action or proceeding becoming 

final, the court shall order the records sealed. 

663 
Interim Decision #2490 

nate the conviction as a basis for deportation under section 241(a)(11) of 

the Act. We noted in Matter of Zingis, that in enacting the Federal 

Youth Corrections Act, COngress expressed its objectives as the rehabilitation al youthful offenders to enable them to become useful citizens in our society, and that this desire of Congress to give youth a new 

chance would be thwarted by deportation. InMatter of Andrade, 14 I. & 

N. Dec. 651 (BIA 1974), we granted a Service motion to terminate 

deportatithi proceedings and vacated the order directing respondent's 

deportation under, section 241(a)(11) of the Act in view of the expungement of the record of a conviction of possession of marijuana in violation 

of Section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code of California. The 

expungement was executed upon the completion of youthful offender 

treatment under Section 1772 of the California Welfare and Institutions 

Code. In Matter of Andrade we pointed out that: 

... The General Counsel informs us that, on the recommendation of the Solicitor 

General, the Ssrvice has now adopted the position that marijuana violators who are 

treated as youth offenders under state laws will be dealt with in the same manner as 

awl& offenders under federal law. The latter are relieved from deportability on expuntement of fie conviction, Mestre-Mor'era v. INS, 462 F.2d 1030 (1 CIr. 1972); Matter 

of Zingis, Interim Decision 2270 (BIA'Atarch 11, 1974). 

We 'find a significant parallel in the facts in Matter of Andrade and the 

facts presented in this case. The respondents in both cases were youthful offenders who were convicted of the same misdemeanor offense to 

wit: pbssession of marijuana in violation of Section 11530 of the California health and Safety Code. Also, the record of conviction in each case 

was expunged under California law. While it is true that the respondent 

in this case did not receive youthful offender treatment under Section 

1772 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, it is apparent that 

the respondent was, in effect, treated as a youthful offender when he 

was granted the benefits of Section 1203.45 of the California Penal 

Code. At the time of the commission of his misdemeanor offense, only 

persons under the age of 21 were permitted to petition the court for an 

order sealing the record of arrest and conviction. Under the current 

amendment to Section 1208.45 only persons under the age of 18 are 

permitted to petition the court for such relief. 

We note that by operation of state law, the Service would have been 

advised by California authorities that no record of conviction existed 

had the Service attempted to obtain a copy of respondent's record 

subsequent to the issuance of the order sealing that record. 

Section 1203.45 is obviously aimed at the rehabilitation of youthful 

offenders by providing them•with a "clean slate". These objectives are 

identical to the Congressional objectives expressed in Matter of Zingis, 

supra, and to the recommendation of the Solicitor General which .was 

664 
Interim Decision #2490 

enunciated in Matter of Andrade, supra. 3Accordingly, we conclude that 

the sealing of respondent's record of arrest and conviction of marijuana 

possession under Section 1203.45 of the California Penal Code operates 

to eliminate the conviction as a bails for deportation under section 

241(a)(11) of the Act. 

For these reasons, we have concluded that the immigration judge's 

decision in terminating deportation proceedings was correct. 

ORDER: The decision of the immigration judge is affirmed. 

3 In his letter to the General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service dated 

March 7, 1974, (Appendix to Matter of Andrade, 14 L & N. Dec. 651 (BIA 1974), the 

Solicitor General stated that: 

. . . A disparity in treatment' of state and federal youth offenders is particularly 

inappropriate in view of the fact that, quite frequently, the underlying facts involve 

violation of state and federal law, and may be , the basis of either state or federal 

prosecution. Indeed, as to persons under 21, federal law encourages the United States 

Attorney to forego prosecution and surrender the juvenile to state authorities if "it will 

be to the best interest of the United States and of the juvenile offender" to do so. 18 

U.S.C. 5001. Where &choice can be made, it is generally the practice that less serious 

offenses are handled by state prosecution, and that federal prosecutions are reserved 

for the more serious offenses 

. . . the Service would be warranted in construing Section 1251(a)(11) as not requiring deportation on the basis of a state marihuana conviction of a ynuth offender which 

has been expunged or set aside pursuant to a law comparable to the Federal Youth 

Corrections Act, if the youth offender upon conviction could have obtained expungement under the federal law if he had been subjected to federal prosecution. 

665