Court Opinion

ID: 9637681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:15:23.724824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:07.666825
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
The relator urges that, in remanding the cause for a further hearing by the immigration authorities, our decision is inconsistent *759with the prior opinion of this court in United States ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 51 F.(2d) 1022. It was there said that the particular circumstances under which the crime was committed may not he considered, and that, “when by its definition it does not necessarily involve moral turpitude, the alien cannot be deported because in the particular instance his conduct was immoral.” This language means that neither the immigration officials nor the court reviewing their decision may go outside the record of conviction to determine .whether in the particular instance the alien’s conduct was immoral. And by the record of conviction we mean the charge (indictment), plea, verdict, -and sentence. The evidence upon which the verdict was rendered may not be considered, nor may the guilt of the defendant be contradicted. So construed there is no inconsistency between that opinion and this; and such is plainly the correct construction, because it is the specific criminal charge of which the alien is found guilty and for which he is sentenced that conditions his deportation, provided it involves moral turpitude. • Obviously it must be quite immaterial that some other charge not involving moral turpitude may he called by the same generic name, as, for example, assault in the second degree. If an indictment contains several counts, one charging a crime involving moral turpitude -and others not, the record of conviction would, of course, have to show conviction and sentence on the first count to justify deportation.
The petition for rehearing is denied.