Interim Decision #2261 

MATTER OF FORTIS 

In Deportation Proceedings 

A-10761351 

Decided by Board January 29, 1974 

Respondent's conviction on a plea of nolo contenders of possession of marijuana 

in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code of California is 

sufficient to sustain a charge of deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 

CHARGES: 

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(11) [8 1251(a)(11)]--At any time after 

entry has been convicted of a violation of a law relating 

to the illicit possession of marijuana. 

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Michael R. Crosner, Esquire 

8447 Wilshire Boulevard 

Beverly Hills, Calif. 90211 

This is an appeal from an order of an immigration judge finding 

the respondent deportable, denying his request for termination of 

the proceedings, and directing his deportation to El Salvador. The 

appeal will be dismissed. 

The respondent is a 36-year-old married male alien, native and 

citizen of El Salvador, who was admitted to the United States for 

permanent residence on November 22, 1959. At a hearing before 

an immigration judge, at which he was represented by present 

counsel, respondent denied that he was convicted of possession of 

marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety 

Code of California, and denied deportability. The immigration 

judge found the respondent to be deportable and, finding him 

ineligible for discretionary relief, ordered his deportation_ 

The record indicates that on Apri130, 1970, in the Superior Court 

of California for the County of Los Angeles, the respondent, 

through other counsel, pleaded nob, contendere to an information 

charging him with the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana 

under section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code of California 

(Ex. 2). The record shows that this plea was approved by the court 

and the respondent was sentenced to three years' probation and 

576 
Interim Decision #2261 

fined $300 (Ex. 2). The immigration judge concluded that this 

evidence established that the respondent was deportable as 

charged. 

On appeal counsel maintains that a conviction on a plea of nolo 

contendere is not a conviction within the scope of section 241(a)(11) 

of the Act. We reject this contention. It is settled that a plea of 

nolo contendere, when accepted by the court, becomes for all 

practical purposes the, full equivalent of a plea of guilty, Farrington v. King, 128 F.2d 785 (C.A. 8, 1942). A conviction on a plea of 

nolo contenders has been held sufficient to sustain a deportation 

charge under section 241(aX11) of the Act, Ruis-Rubio v. INS, 380 

F.2d 29 (C.A. 9, 1967), cert. denied 389 U.S. 944. See also Chu v. 

Cornell, 247 F2d 929, 938 (C.A. 9, 1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 892 

and Matter of W—, 5 I. & N. Dec. 759 (B IA 1954). 

Counsel further contends that since the respondent was never 

advised that his plea would make him deportable, he was denied 

due process of law. The fact that a defendant is not made aware of 

every possible collateral consequence of his plea, including that of 

deportation, does not amount to a denial of due process which 

would vitiate the plea, United States v. Santelises, 476 F2d 787, 

789 (C.A. 2, 1973); Wurzinger v. INS, 483 F.2d 1400 (table), unreported opinion (C.A. 7, No. 72-1448, August 6, 1973), cert. denied 

414 U.S. 1070 (1974); United States v. Sambro, 454 F2d 918 (D.C. 

Cir. 1971); U.S. ex reL Durcente v. Holton, 228 F2d 827, 830 (C.A. 7, 

1956), cert. denied 351 U.S. 963 ;Joseph v. Esperdy, 267 F. Supp. 492, 

494 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). This rule has been applied even where an alien 

has been affirmatively misled by counsel into believing that his 

plea would not subject him to deportation, United States v. 

Parrino, 212 F.2d 919, 921 (C.A. 2, 1954). We have held that insofar 

as deportation proceedings are concerned, an immigration judge 

cannot entertain a collateral attack on a judgment of conviction 

unless that judgment is void on its face, and he cannot go behind 

the judicial record to determine the guilt or innocence of the alien. 

See Matter of Sirluen, 13 T. & N. Dee. 592, 594 (B IA 1970); Wilson v. 

Carr, 41 F2d 704, 706 (C.A. 9, 1930); U.S. ex rel. Freislinger v. 

Smith, 41 F2d 707, 708 (C.A. 7, 1930). Counsel's reliance on United 

States v. Briscoe, 432 F.2d 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1970), is misplaced, since 

that case involved a collateral challenge to a conviction in criminal, not deportation, proceedings. 

We note that while this appeal was pending the Supreme Court 

denied respondent's petition for a writ of certiorari, 404 U.S. 1000 

(December 20, 1971). The following order will be entered. 

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 

577