Opinion ID: 769911
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Purpose of the New Definition

Text: 53 There is a second reason that the applicable rules of statutory construction require us to reject the INS's argument. In order for us to find an implied repeal, it would have to be clear that Congress intended to repeal the First Offender Act; or, to put it in the words of Radzanower,the intention of the legislature to repeal [would have to be] clear and manifest. 426 U.S. at 154 (internal quotation omitted). However, as our description of the statutory and legislative history reveals, it seems quite apparent that Congress's purpose in enacting the new definition of the term conviction was not to work a repeal of the Act, in whole or in part. Instead, the purpose of the amendment appears to have been to establish the time at which a particular type of proceeding, specifically, deferred adjudication, results in a conviction for immigration purposes -not to alter the long-standing rule that a conviction entered but subsequently vacated or set aside cannot serve as the basis for a deportation order. Under the interpretation we find most probable, Congress intended, as a general matter, to allow for the deportation of aliens found guilty under state laws prior to the time their offenses were actually expunged, regardless of whether or not the finding was formally a conviction as a matter of state law -more particularly, regardless of whether or not the entry of conviction had beendeferred. We do not believe, however, that Congress intended to eliminate the longstanding rule that when a conviction or finding of guilt has actually been expunged, it may not thereafter be used as the basis for removal. As we explained above, both the legislative history and the language of the statute, viewed in relation to the prior administrative case law, particularly Ozkok, make the interpretation we favor by far the most likely one. 54 If, as we believe, Congress intended to address only the question of the time at which certain proceedings result in a conviction, then the new definition obviously does not impliedly repeal the First Offender Act for purposes of immigration law. 28 But we need not finally resolve the question of Congress's purpose in enacting the new definition. It is enough to conclude that Congress did not demonstrate a clear and manifest intention to repeal the Federal First Offender Act, in whole or in part; 29 and we so conclude, without the slightest hesitation here. Accordingly, under Radzanower, we are required to hold that no implied repeal occurred.