Opinion ID: 735880
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of the Motion for Remand

Text: 10 On appeal to the Board, Sneddon requested an opportunity to apply for an adjustment of status, arguing that if he could expunge his assault conviction he would be eligible for a discretionary waiver of inadmissability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). 1 We affirm the Board's denial of his request. 11 The Board properly determined that because Sneddon was originally charged with possession of cocaine for sale, he is an excludable alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) and independently barred from receiving an adjustment of status or any other discretionary relief from deportation as a result. Further, he is not eligible for a discretionary waiver of his inadmissability. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (prohibiting the Attorney General from waiving excludability under subsection (a)(2)(C)). 12 Sneddon's argument that his conviction for accessory after the fact is not a drug trafficking offense is unavailing because, while true, the statute allows the INS to exclude any alien whom an immigration officer knows or has reason to believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance. The Board therefore may look to the original charge made against a petitioner rather than to his conviction to determine whether or not he was excludable. See Paredes-Urrestarzu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir.1994) (The fact of arrest, insofar as it bears upon whether an alien might have engaged in underlying conduct and insofar as facts probative of an alien's 'bad character or undesirability as a permanent resident' arise from the arrest itself, plainly can have relevance.); Villanueva-Franco v. INS, 802 F.2d 327, 330 (9th Cir.1986) (BIA did not err in considering past criminal record as a basis for denying discretionary relief); Hamid v. INS, 538 F.2d 1389, 1391 (9th Cir.1976) ([T]he immigration officer need not know that an individual is or has been a trafficker in order to exclude that person. The officer is justified in acting if he has 'reason to believe' that an individual is so engaged.). The evidence before the Board gave it sufficient reason to believe that Sneddon was involved in illicit trafficking of drugs.