Source: https://openjurist.org/557/f2d/536/pasquini-v-united-states-immigration-and-naturalization-service
Timestamp: 2017-08-19 20:46:25
Document Index: 288198033

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1251', '§ 1251', '§ 1255', '§ 1255', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 1251', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 1182', '§ 1251', '§ 1182', '§ 1255']

557 F2d 536 Pasquini v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service | OpenJurist
557 F. 2d 536 - Pasquini v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
557 F2d 536 Pasquini v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
557 F.2d 536
Mario PASQUINI, Petitioner,
No. 76-3694.
Mario Pasquini is a 39-year-old citizen of Italy who currently resides in Florida. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) moved for his deportation to Italy on two grounds: he has overstayed the six-month visa granted him on his last entry into the United States in July of 1974, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(2) (1970); and he has been convicted of a violation of a law relating to illicit possession of marijuana, in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(11) (1970). Seeking to stave off deportation, Pasquini applied for readjustment of status to that of permanent resident alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255(a) (Supp.1977); the Immigration Judge denied readjustment and upheld both grounds for deportation urged by the INS, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed Pasquini's appeal. We affirm.
Wholly apart from his Bahamian conviction for possession of marijuana, Pasquini is deportable for overstaying his temporary admission permit, and his only hope of remaining is that his application for discretionary adjustment of status be granted. As a condition for such discretionary adjustment, he must be "eligible to receive an immigrant visa" and "admissible to the United States for permanent residence." 8 U.S.C.A. § 1255(a)(2) (Supp.1976). A separate provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182(a) (23) (1970), renders ineligible for a visa and excludable from admission:
Thus we must decide, as did the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals, whether Pasquini's 1971 conviction was for violating a "law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of . . . marijuana . . ." within the contemplation of § 1182(a)(23).
The wording of this section (and its counterpart within the deportation statute, § 1251(a)(11)) is so broad as to require the conclusion that violations of foreign as well as domestic marijuana laws fall within its ambit: "any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of . . .marijuana . . . ." (emphasis added). Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1975). Indeed, Pasquini does not argue otherwise. Instead he borrows heavily from Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975), in contending that the Bahamian statute under which he was convicted allows convictions for innocent as well as "illicit" possession, and thus that his conviction does not render him ineligible for admission. In Lennon the Second Circuit concluded, in agreement with the Board of Immigration Appeals, that since § 1182(a)(23) is addressed to violations of laws proscribing illicit possession, an alien should not be excluded for a conviction under a foreign statute which penalized unknowing as well as intentional possession. Finding that Lennon had been convicted of violating a British statute which made guilty knowledge irrelevant to conviction, the Second Circuit ruled Lennon not excludable.
By the clear terms of this statute, guilty knowledge or want thereof is expressly made relevant to the proceedings. Granting that the defense, rather than the prosecution, bears the burden (and must prove lack of knowledge), the statute nevertheless differs markedly from one under which a defendant who honestly believed he possessed aspirin tablets could be convicted if the tablets in fact contained heroin. 527 F.2d at 192. Charged with violating the Bahamian statute, a defendant is apparently entitled to prove, if he can, that his possession was unknowing and innocent.4 Assuming without deciding that the Lennon holding is correct, we have here a statute which makes guilty knowledge relevant and hence is a "law . . . relating to the illicit possession of . . . marijuana," within the contemplation of § 1182(a)(23).
The same sweeping wording which persuades us that § 1182(a)(23) includes convictions under foreign law likewise compels a conclusion that such a foreign conviction need not comport with our notions of the proper conduct of criminal trials. Exclusion is required when the alien has been convicted of violating "any law or regulation" dealing with illicit possession of narcotic drugs or marijuana; the section does not contemplate with the possible exception of the Lennon result our examination of foreign convictions to determine whether they conform to domestic constitutional standards. See Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1975) (construing the identical wording in § 1251(a)(11)).
The Board below correctly found petitioner Pasquini excludable under § 1182(a) (23) and thus ineligible for adjustment of status under § 1255(a)(2). The decision is therefore