DEL RISCO

                                                            Interim Decision #3119




                       MATTER OF DEL RISCO
                          In Deportation Proceedings
                                    A-27087870
                      Decided by Board May 25, 1989

  A conviction in the Superior Court of Arizona for facilitation of the unlawful sale of
cocaine renders an alien deportable under section 241(a)(I 1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 

(a)(11) (Supp. IV 1986), as an alien convicted of a
violation of a law relating to a controlled substance.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2) [

(a)(2)]—Nonimmigrant—remained
                     longer than permitted
                     Sec. 241(a)(9) [

(a)(9)]—Nonimmigrant—failed to
                       comply with conditions of status
                     Sec. 241(a)(11) [

(a)(11)]—Convicted of narcotics
                       violation
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT:                             ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
  Peter E. Keller, Esquire                             John Holya
  Law Offices of Keller & Postero                      General Attorney
  115 West Washington Street
  Tucson, Arizona 85701

BY: Morris, Acting Chairman; Vacca, Board Member, Arrowsmith, Temporary Board
     Member


   In a decision dated October 22, 1985, an immigration judge
terminated the respondent's deportation proceedings on the basis that
he was not deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 

(a)(11) (1982). The Immigration and
Naturalization Service appealed from that decision. Subsequent to the
immigration judge's decision, the respondent was served with another
Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-221), charging
him with deportability under sections 241(a)(2) and (9) of the Act. The
immigration judge found the respondent deportable on these charges
and denied his request for voluntary departure. The respondent has
appealed from that decision. The Service appeal concerning the issue
                                          109
Interim Decision #3119

of deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the Act will be sustained.
The respondent's appeal will be dismissed.
   The respondent is a native and citizen of Colombia. At his hearing
he admitted that he entered the United States on August 1, 1984, as a
nonimmigrant visitor for pleasure and that he was authorized to
remain in the United States until January 31, 1985. Therefore we find
that deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Act has been
established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence as required
by 

(a) (1988) and Woodby v. INS, 

(1966). See Matter of Teberen, 

 (BIA 1976).
   Section 241(a)(11) of the Act currently provides as follows:'
   Any alien in the United States (including an alien crewman) shall, upon the order of
   the Attorney General, be deported who—
       is, or hereafter at any time after entry has been, a narcotic drug addict, or who at
   any time has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or
   regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled
   substance (as defined in section 101 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
   802)). (Emphasis added.)
   The amended statute significantly broadens the drug-related criminal activities which warrant the expulsion or deportation of an alien.
See Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, 

 (BIA 1988). The
respondent admitted that he was convicted on April 9, 1985, in the
Superior Court of Arizona of facilitation of the unlawful sale of
cocaine. Section 13-1004.A of the Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated
states as follows:
       A person, other than a peace officer acting in his official capacity within the scope
   of his authority and in the line of duty, commits facilitation if, acting with knowledge
   that another person is committing or intends to commit an offense, such person
   knowingly provides such other person with means or opportunity for the commission
   of the offense and which in fact aids such person to commit the offense. (Emphasis
   added.)
   We find that the offense of facilitation of the sale of cocaine is a
crime which relates to a controlled substance. Although facilitation
may not be a lesser included offense of selling cocaine, the respondent's actions, as defined by the Arizona statute, aided the commission
of the crime. Therefore, we find the offense to be similar in nature to
aiding and abetting. Aiding and abetting the sale of cocaine is a
violation of a law relating to a controlled substance. See Londono-Gomez v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1983). Further, the intent of the
amendment of section 241(a)(11) was to expand the power of the
Government to control drug use through the immigration laws. See

  Subsequent to the immigration judge's decision, this section was amended by the
Antidrug Abuse Act of 1986, 

 Stat. 3207.

                                            110
                                                           Interim Decision #3119

Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, supra. Consequently, we find that the
respondent is deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Act. Accordingly, the Service appeal on this issue will be sustained. Since we find
the respondent deportable under sections 241(a)(2) and (11) of the Act,
we need not determine whether he is also deportable under section
241(a)(9) of the Act.
   The respondent also appeals from the denial of his request for
voluntary departure. By the express terms of section 244(e) of the Act,

(e) (1982), an alien deportable under section
241(a)(11) of the Act is ineligible for voluntary departure unless he
separately qualifies under the provisions of section 244(a)(2) of the
Act, which in the case of criminal offenders requires, inter a[ia, that
the alien have been physically present in this country for a continuous
period of not less than 10 years following his conviction. See generally
Matter of P-, 

 (BIA 1955). The 10-year period is
measured from the date of conviction, as it is the conviction that
renders the alien deportable. In the instant case, the record reflects that
the respondent was convicted of facilitation of the sale of cocaine on
April 9, 1985: Since 10 years from the date of the conviction
constituting the ground of deportability have not yet elapsed, the
respondent is not eligible for voluntary departure.
   Accordingly, the Service appeal concerning the issue of the respondent's deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the Act will be
sustained. The respondent's appeal will be dismissed. 2
  ORDER:        The Service appeal from the immigration judge's
decision dated October 22, 1985, is sustained.
  FURTHER ORDER:             The respondent's appeal is dismissed.




  2 We note that the record of the deportation proceedings erroneously includes some of
the documents pertaining to a Service appeal from the immigration judge's October 23,
1985, decision ordering a bond in the amount of $10,000 to be reduced' to $2,000. The
records and information pertaining to the bond, including the immigration judge's
written memorandum giving reasons for the decision, have not been forwarded to the
Board for adjudication of the bond appeal. Sec 

(c) (1988). Li view of
the disposition of the appeals concerning the deportation proceedings, the bond matters
in issue in 1985 may be moot.

                                         111