MATT= OF R—MIn EXCLUSION Proceedings 

A-10787236 

Decided by Board January 24,1961 

Excludability—Will be determined in accordance with law existing at time of 

examination for admission. 

(1) Determination of admissibility must take into account legislation enacted 

between the date of au alien's parole Into tne United -states and the date 

he is examined upon his application for admission. 

(2) Amendment of July 14, 1960, to section 212(a) (23) of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act intervening between date (June 10, 1960) alien is 

paroled for completion of deferred inspection and date of hearing before 

SIO (August 5, 1960) requires alien's exclusion based upon his conviction in 

1959 for possession of marihuana. 

Examono: Act of 1952—Section 212(a) (23) [S U.S.C. 1182(a) (23)J—Convicted 

of unlawful possession of marihuana. 

BEFORE THE BOARD 

DISCUSSION: This case is before us on appeal from a decision 

of a special inquiry officer excluding the appellant on the ground 

stated above. 

The appellant is a 19-year-old unmarried male, native and citizen 

of Mexico, who has resided in this country since about 1947. He 

was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence 

on July 24, 1956. On June 10, 1960, he applied for readmission to 

the United States following a short absence in Mexico but he was 

not in possession of the necessary documentation, having lost his 

alien registration receipt card. He was paroled under 8 U.S.C. 

1182(d) (5) for cumpletion of deferred inspection. On August 5, 

1960, he was excluded by a special inquiry officer because of his 

conviction on November 10, 1959, for a violation of section 11530 

of the California Health and Safety Codo (willful and unlawful 

possession of marihuana). The sole issue is whether the appellant 

is inadmissible to the United States. 

Between July 18, 1956, and July 14, 1960, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (23) 

provided for the exclusion of "Any alien who has been convicted of 

a violation of * * any law or regulation relating to the illicit pos170 
sebbion of or traffic in narcotic drugs * *." Section 8 of the Act 

of July 14, 1960 [8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (23). Supp.; 74 Stat. 505] 

amended "narcotic drugs" to read "narcotic drugs or marihuana." 

We have carefully reviewed the entire record. Prior to the Act 

of July 14, 1960, it had been held that marihuana was not a narcotic drug and that a conviction for the illicit possession. of marihuana was not within the purview of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (23). Boy 

v. lIiendoza-Rivera, 267 F.2d 451 (C.A. 9, 1959). Under the amendment of July 14, 1960, the appellant is clearly excludable and counsel apparently concedes that he would be inadmissible because of 

the conviction in connection with any future application for admission to the United States but he contends that the appellant entered 

the United States on June 10, 1960, and was not then excludable. 

However, an alien who is merely paroled into the United States 

does not make an "entry" within the meaning of the immigration 

laws. Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 185 (1958). 8 U.S.C. 

1182(d) (5) specifically provides that the parole of an alien shall 

nut be regarded as an admission of the alien and that upon termination of parole the case shall continue to be dealt with in the same 

manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United 

States. The remaining contentions of counsel are without merit and 

do not require discussion. 

Even where a statute is amended after judgment in a lower court, 

the appellate court will decide the case in accordance with the terms 

of the amended act. Carpenter N. 1Vabasle, Railway Co., 309 U.S. 

23, 27 (1940) ; Dinsmore v. Sauth,ern. Express Co., 183 U.S. 115, 

120 (1901). Subsequent legislation has also been taken into consideration in disposing of immigration cases. United States ex rel. 

Wiezynski v. Shaughnessy, 185 F.2d 347 (C.A. 2, 1950) ; United 

States ex rel. Pizzuto v. Shaughnessy, 184 F.2d 666 (C.A. 2, 1950). 

The Attorney General's decision of January 3, 1961, in Matter of 

K—, A-6723213, J-143, is also apposite. That case, of course, did 

not involve a change of law but rather the occurrence of a conviction 

subsequent to the application for admission to the United States. 

However, this distinction is not important and we regard Matter of 

K—, supra, as controlling and requiring the dismissal of the appeal. 

ORDER: It is ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby 

dismissed. 

171