Interim Decision #3200
MATTER OF IC-L-
In Deportation Proceedings
A-25015072
Decided by Board June 3, 1993
(1)A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Supp. II 1990) for use of a firearm during
a drug trafficking crime or crime of violence is a conviction for immigration purposes
because this statute creates distinct offenses separate from the underlying offenses,
rather than merely enabling penalty enhancement. Matter of Rodriguez-Cortes,
20
I&N Dec. 587 (BIA 1992), distinguished.
(2) An alien convicted of use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime is deportable
under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
8 U.S.C.
§ 1251(a)(2)(C) (Supp. III 1991), as an alien convicted at any time after entry of a
firearm violation, and under section 241(aX2)(AXiii) of the Act, as an alien convicted
of an aggravated felony.
CHARGE:
Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2)(C) [
8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(Q—Convicted of firearms violation
Lodged: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) [
8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(iiin—Convicted
of aggravated felony
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE:
Pro se Joyce L. Richard
General Attorney
BY: Malhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members
The respondent has appealed from a decision dated January 26,
1993, in which the immigration judge found him deportable under
section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8
U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) (Supp. III 1991), as an alien convicted of
an aggravated felony at any time after entry, and under section
241(a)(2)(C) of the Act, as an alien convicted of a firearms violation at
any time after entry. The immigration judge also found him ineligible
for asylum under section 208(a) of the Act, S II.S_C_ § 1158(a) (1988),
withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Act,
8 U.S.C.
§ 1253(h) (Supp. III 1991), waivers of inadmissibility under sections
212(c) and (h) of the Act,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(c) and (h) (Supp. III 1991),
CGA
Interim Decision #3200
and adjustment of status under section 245(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
§ 1255(a) (1988). The appeal will be dismissed.
The respondent is a 26-year-old native and citizen of Laos who was
admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on
March 31, 1980. On October 18, 1991, the respondent was convicted,
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
under count IV of a six-count indictment, which stated that he
knowingly used and carried a firearm, that is, an S.W.D. Inc. (Cobray) Model M-11 9
mm semi-automatic pistol, during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime for
which [he] may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, namely, the unlawful
sale of 2.30 grams of opium described in Count III; all in violation of Title
18,
United States Code, Section 924(c)(1).t
The respondent received a sentence of 18 months' incarceration, to be
followed by 3 years' probation. An Order to Show Cause and Notice of
Hearing (Form I-221) was issued on December 7, 1992, charging the
respondent with deportability under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service lodged an additional
charge under section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act on January 13, 1993.
On appeal, the respondent challenges the immigration judge's
determinations about his deportability and eligibility for relief from
deportation. Ile further argues that his limited criminal background
and his equities in this country establish that he warrants a favorable
exercise of discretion for the relevant forms of relief from deportation.
Additionally, the respondent alleges that his due process rights were
violated at the hearing. In reply, the Service argues that the immigration judge correctly set out the facts and the applicable law in his
decision, and therefore his decision should be affirmed.
DEPORTABILITY
The respondent was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Supp.
II 1990), which reads in pertinent part as follows:
Whoever, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime
(including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime which provides for an
enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or
device) for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or
carries a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of
violence or drug trafficking crime, be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and
if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, [sic] short-barreled shotgun to imprisonment
for ten years, and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, or is
equipped with a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years.
'The other five counts of the indictment, for which he was not convicted, charged the
respondent with the unlawful distribution of opium in violation of
21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(lXc) (1988). The record reflects that the events leading to the
respondent's conviction occurred in February and March 1991.
Interim Decision #3200
In his decision, the immigration judge found that the respondent's
conviction under this statute for the use of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime had elements which rendered it both a firearms
violation and an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. In
reaching this conclusion, he distinguished our recent decision in
Matter of Rodriguez-Cortes,
20 I&N Dec. 587 (BIA 1992). We agree
with this analysis.
The federal courts have recognized the aforementioned portion of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) as creating distinct offenses separate from the
underlying offenses, rather than merely being an enhancement provision, despite its appearance as a penalty enhancement provision. See
United States v. Hill,
971 F.2d 1461 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v.
Hunter,
887 F.2d 1001 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam), cert. denied,
493
U.S. 1090 (1990); see also United States v. Onick,
889 F.2d 1425, 1431
(5th Cir. 1989); Matter of Carrillo,
16 I&N Dec. 625 (BIA 1978). 2
Inde,thrspo'cnviexmplfsthnraio,
it was the only statutory provision under which he was convicted.
In this regard, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), as applied in the current case,
stands in distinct contrast to the sentencing enhancement provision we
recently addressed in Matter of Rodriguez-Cortes, supra. In that
decision, the respondent had been convicted of five counts of
attempted murder, and her sentence had been enhanced under the
California Penal Code due to the fact that a principal codefendant had
been armed with a firearm. The issue before us was whether the
application of the enhancement provision would render the respondent deportable for a firearms violation. We looked for guidance in
decisions of the California Supreme Court, which held that the
particular section of the code at issue did not create a separate offense,
but only constituted additional punishment for the offense to which it
was applied. Due to this determination, we reasoned that the
application of the enhancement provision in that case did not
constitute a conviction for immigration purposes. Accordingly, we
declined to find the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(2)(C)
2 In Matter of Carrillo, supra, we first recognized that the earlier version of
18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) created a distinct and separate offense from the underlying felony. We also
concluded that it did not constitute a controlled substance violation under former
section 241(a)(11) of the Act. However, that case did not address the nature of the
statute as an enhancement provision and dealt with different deportation grounds.
Therefore, it does not compel any result in the current case. We further note that
18
U.S.C. § 924(c) was amended in 1986 to include the specific language "drug trafficking
crime" as a predicate crime to a § 924(c) conviction. See Firearms Owners' Protection
Act,
Pub. L. No. 99-308, § 104(a)(2),
100 Stat. 449, 456-57 (1986); see also United States
v.
Hill, supra, at 1466.
656
Interim Decision #3200
of the Act, as her conviction for attempted murder did not include
elements of a weapons offense.
The reasoning in Matter of Rodriguez-Cortes, supra, does not
control the instant situation because we are concerned here with a
provision of law which creates a distinct offense, rather than merely
increases the punishment. Accordingly, we find that a conviction
under 18 U.S.0 § 924(c)(1), as applied in the current case, constitutes
a conviction for immigration purposes. See Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N
Dec. 546 (BIA 1988). We further find that the respondent's conviction
renders him deportable as charged under sections 241(a)(2XC) and
(A)(iii) of the Act, as an alien convicted of a firearms violation and an
aggravated felony.
A conviction under
18 U.S.C. § 924(cX1) for the use of a firearm
during a drug trafficking crime requires the Government to prove the
following:
(1) that the defendant committed the underlying crime;
(2) that he used or carried a weapon;
(3) and that the use or carriage of the weapon was during and in relation to the
drug trafficking crime.
United States v. Nicholson, 983 F.2d 983, 990 (10th Cir. 1993).
Section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act provides as follows:
Any alien who at any time after entry is convicted under any law of purchasing,
selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying in
violation of any law, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive
device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code) is deportable.
As set out above, the requirements for a conviction under
18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) clearly establish that the use or carriage of a weapon is an
integral element of the crime. Since the respondent has been convicted
of a crime for which an essential element is the use of a weapon, he is
clearly deportable under section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act as an alien
convicted of a firearms violation. 3 Cf. Matter of Montenegro,
20 I&N
Dec. 603 (BIA 1992) (Heilman, concurring) (analyzing the anomalies
which result from various forms of criminal prosecution and the
consequences for immigration purposes).
We further find that the respondent is deportable under section
241(a)(2)(A)(iiI) of the Act as an alien convicted of an aggravated
felony. The definition of aggravated felony provides as follows:
3 In his appeal brief, the respondent appears to argue that because he legally purchased
his weapon and failed to fire it during the crime he is not deportable for a firearms
violation. However, we do not find it relevant that the firearm was legally purchased,
because its appearance during an illegal activity is the act prohibited by the criminal
statute. Further, the language of section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act makes it clear that the
weapon need not be discharged to render an alien deportable.
657
Interim Decision #3200
The term "aggravated felony" means murder, any illicit trafficking in any controlled
substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act), including any
drug trafficking crime as defined in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United States Code,
or any illicit trafficking in any firearms or destructive devices as defined in section
921 of such title, any offense described in section 1956 of title 18, United States
Code (relating to laundering of monetary instruments), or any crime of violence (as
defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code, not including a purely political
offense) for which the term of imprisonment imposed (regardless of any suspension
of such imprisonment) is at least 5 years. or any attempt or conspiracy to commit any
such act. Such term applies to offenses described in the previous sentence whether in
violation of Federal or State law and also applies to offenses described in the
previous sentence in violation of foreign law for which the term of imprisonment was
completed within the previous 15 years.
Section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (Supp. III 1991).
In Matter of Davis,
20 I&N Dec. 536 (BIA 1992), we held that a
drug-related aggravated felony includes any state, federal, or qualified
foreign felony conviction involving the unlawful trading or dealing of
any controlled substance.
Id. at 541. Clearly, by its terms, the
respondent's conviction for unlawful use of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime involves the unlawful distribution of a controlled
substance. Indeed, to secure a conviction under § 924(c)(1), the
Government must prove that the defendant committed the underlying
drug trafficking crime. See United States v. 11111, supra, at 1463.
Accordingly, we find that the respondent's conviction encompasses
elements which establish that it is an aggravated felony within the
meaning of section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 4 and a firearms
violation within the meaning of section 241(a)(2)(C) of the Act. We
conclude, as did the immigration judge, that the respondent's deportability has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing
evidence, as required. Woodby v. INS,
385 U.S. 276 (1966);
8 C.F.R.
§ 242.14(a) (1993).
RELIEF FROM DEPORTATION
The respondent has challenged the denial of his prospective
applications for relief, specifically emphasizing his equities in this
country and the evidence of his rehabilitation. However, the respondent's conviction and deportability preclude him from establishing his
4 Further, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) for use of a firearm during a crime
of violence would also render an alien offender deportable under section
241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, so long as the crime was committed on or after November
29, 1990, and the term of imprisonment imposed was at least 5 years. Sea Matter of A A ,
- -
20 I&N Dec. 492, at 500 (BIA 1992). In comparison, an alien is deportable for a drug-related aggravated felony whether the conviction occurs before, on, or after November
18, 1988.
Id.
658
Interim Decision #3200
statutory eligibility for the requested forms of relief. We will analyze
each form of relief in turn.
It is well established that a section 212(c) waiver of inadmissibility,
which provides for discretionary relief from exclusion, does not apply
to the deportation ground for firearms offenses. See Cabasug v. INS,
847 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1988); Matter of Granados,
16 I&N Dec. 726
(BIA 1979), gird,
624 F.2d 191 (9th Cir. 1980). This stems from the
recognition that a section 212(c) waiver is only available to aliens in
deportation proceedings who are being deported on grounds for which
comparable exclusion grounds exist. See Matter of Hernandez-Casillas,
20 I&N Dec. 262 (BIA 1990; A.G. 1991), affd,
983 F.2d 231 (5th Cir.
1993); see also Matter of Wadud,
19 I&N Dec. 182 (BIA 1984). There
is no exclusion ground for a firearms violation. Accordingly, the
respondent is statutorily ineligible for this form of relief.
The respondent additionally expressed a fear of returning to his
native country of Laos. However, the respondent's conviction precludes him from eligibility for both asylum and withholding of
deportation. Section 208(d) of the Act specifically states that an alien
convicted of an aggravated felony is ineligible for asylum. Further,
section 243(h)(2)(B) of the Act states that withholding of deportation
shall not apply to an alien who, "having been convicted by a final
judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of the United States." This provision is qualified by the
statement that "an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated
felony shall be considered to have committed a particularly serious
crime." Section 243(h)(2) of the Act. Further, a conviction for a
particularly serious crime mandates a finding that the respondent is a
danger to the community. See Matter of IC-, 20 I&N Dec. 418 (WA
1991). Accordingly, the respondent's conviction for an aggravated
felony disqualifies him from either form of relief. See also Matter ofA-
A-, supra, at 18-21.
The respondent further asserts that he is eligible for adjustment of
status under section 245(a) of the Act.' As noted by the immigration
judge, the respondent did not present evidence that he is the recipient
of an approved visa petition, or that a petition has been filed on his
behalf.6 Therefore, he has not established any possible statutory
eligibility for adjustment of status. Additionally, we point out that the
5 This provision permits the Attorney General, in his discretion, to accord lawful
Permanent resident status to an alien who was inspected and admitted or paroled into
this country and who is admissible, is eligible tti icccive an immigrant visa, and has an
immigrant visa available to him at the time his application for adjustment is filed.
6 Furthermore, there is no indication that the respondent has any relatives who are
United States citizens.
659
Interim Decision #3200
respondent's deportability for a firearms violation would not preclude
adjustment of his status. See Matter of Rainford, 20 I&N Dec. 598
(BIA 1992). However, his conviction for use of a firearm during a drug
trafficking crime would render him inadmissible as a controlled
substance trafficker under section 212(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 7 Therefore,
the respondent is also precluded from relief on this account. In
conclusion, we do not find any form of relief from deportation which
is available to the respondent due to the nature of his conviction. 8
There is one final issue to be discussed. In his Notice of Appeal
(Form EOIR-26), the respondent states that he was denied due process
at the hearing due to his "English language handicap" and lack of
representation. However, at the hearing the respondent stated that he
spoke English, and he did not request an interpreter. Further, our
review of the transcript does not reveal any apparent language
difficulties at the hearing. The respondent has also failed to specify any
portion of the hearing that he did not understand and has not shown
how he was prejudiced by his alleged language difficulties. See Matter
ofSantos, 19 1&N Dec. 105 (BIA 1984). Therefore, we find no merit in
this claim. Further, the record reveals that the respondent was fully
advised of his right to counsel, and the proceedings were continued in
order to enable him to seek representation_ The respondent appeared
unrepresented at the subsequent hearing and did not request another
continuance. These factors lead us to conclude that the respondent's
claim that his right to counsel was violated is also without merit. See
section 292 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1362 (1988).
In sum, the respondent is deportable as charged as an alien
convicted of a firearms violation and an aggravated felony. Further, he
has failed to establish eligibility for any form of relief from deportation
which would possibly be available to him. The appeal will therefore be
dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
'We note that section 212(a)(2)(C) is not a ground of inadmissibility for which a
waiver under section 212(h) of the Act is available.
8 The respondent has argued on appeal that he was deprived of his right to present
evidence of his equities in this country. However, the presentation of such evidence
would not alter the fact that the respondent is statutorily ineligible for the various forms
of relief from deportation which were discussed in this opinion. Therefore, the
respondent's claim in this matter is without merit and does not warrant further
discussion. We also note that although unnecessary, the immigration judge concluded
that the respondent did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion under the mandate
of Ignacio v. INS, 955 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1992). For purposes of clarification, we point
out that there is no language in that decision stating that aliens convicted of an
. aggravated felony should be per se denied all forms of discretionary relief.
660
