S-S

Interim Decision #3374




                              In re S-S-, Respondent

                               Decided January 21, 1999

                            U.S. Department of Justice
                     Executive Office for Immigration Review
                         Board of Immigration Appeals


(1) Under section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(b)(3)(B)(ii) (Supp. II 1996), a determination of whether an alien convicted of an aggravated felony and sentenced to less than 5 years’ imprisonment has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime,” thus barring the alien from withholding of removal, requires an individual examination of the nature of the conviction, the sentence imposed, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction. Matter of Frentescu, 

 (BIA
1982), followed.

(2) Under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, a determination of whether an aggravated felony conviction constitutes a “particularly serious crime” per se is based on the length of sentence
imposed, rather than on the category or type of aggravated felony conviction that resulted in the
conviction. Matter of Gonzalez, 

 (BIA 1988), explained and distinguished.

(3) Under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, there no longer exists a rebuttable presumption that
an alien convicted of an aggravated felony for which a sentence of less than 5 years was
imposed has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” rendering the alien ineligible for
withholding of removal. Matter of Q-T-M-T-, 

 (BIA 1996) (regarding withholding of deportation), distinguished.

(4) An alien who was convicted of first degree robbery of an occupied home while armed
with a handgun and sentenced to 55 months’ imprisonment has been convicted of an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act, 

(a)(43)(F) (Supp. II
1996), and, upon consideration of the nature of the conviction and the sentence imposed, as
well as the underlying facts and circumstances of the conviction, has been convicted of a “particularly serious crime” rendering the alien ineligible for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act.

Pro se

Tammy L. Fitting, Assistant District Counsel, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Before:    Board En Banc: SCHMIDT, Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA,
           HEILMAN, HOLMES, HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, FILPPU, COLE, ROSENBERG, MATHON, GUENDELSBERGER, JONES, GRANT, and SCIALABBA,
           Board Members.

ROSENBERG, Board Member:


                                              458
                                                       Interim Decision #3374


     In a decision dated July 16, 1997, an Immigration Judge found the
respondent removable as charged and ineligible for any form of relief from
removal, and ordered him removed from the United States to Laos. The
respondent filed a timely appeal. We have reviewed the issue presented on
appeal de novo. Matter of Burbano, 

 (BIA 1994); see also
Matter of H-, 

 (BIA 1996). The appeal will be dismissed.
The request for oral argument is denied. See 

(e) (1998).
     The respondent is a native and citizen of Laos who was admitted to the
United States on November 5, 1985, as a refugee. On September 4, 1991,
the respondent was accorded the status of lawful permanent resident as of
March 24, 1989. The respondent admitted that on November 4, 1994, he
was convicted in the Superior Court of Washington for King County of the
offense of first degree robbery while armed with a handgun, in violation of
section 9A.56.200(1)(a) of the Revised Code of Washington. He was sentenced to 55 months in prison for such offense. The record contains a properly certified copy of a “Judgment and Sentence” consistent with the
respondent’s admission. It also contains an “Amended Information” stating
that the respondent “did unlawfully and with intent to commit theft take
personal property” from the victim, “by the use or threatened use of immediate force, violence and fear of injury to such person or her property.”
     On appeal, the respondent expresses repentance for his misdeeds, concern for his family should he be removed, and fear of harm if returned to
Laos. In response, the Immigration and Naturalization Service endorses the
decision of the Immigration Judge.


                   I. ISSUE PRESENTED ON APPEAL

     The issue on appeal presents a question of first impression concerning the
authority presently accorded the Attorney General under section
241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

(b)(3)(B)(ii) (Supp. II 1996): whether a determination that the respondent, “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious
crime, is a danger to the community of the United States,” shall be based on
an individual examination of the nature of the respondent’s conviction for first
degree robbery while armed with a handgun, the sentence imposed for that
conviction, and the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction.


        II. FINDINGS OF REMOVABILITY AND ANALYSIS OF
             PARTICULARLY SERIOUS CRIME EXCEPTION

   Upon review, we find that the respondent was properly placed in
removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (Supp.

                                      459
Interim Decision #3374


II 1996), by the filing of a Notice to Appear (Form I-862) with the
Immigration Court on June 18, 1997. See 

(a) (1998). The
Notice to Appear charges, in pertinent part, that the respondent is removable
under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), 

(a)(2)(A)(iii) (Supp. II
1996), for having been convicted of “an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, to wit: a crime of violence (as defined in section
16 of title 18, United States Code)” for which a term of imprisonment of
more than 1 year was imposed. We find that the respondent’s admission to
the allegations and charges, together with the certified copy of the
“Judgment and Sentence” present in the record, establish that the respondent has been convicted of an aggravated felony and sentenced to 55
months’ imprisonment. See section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act, 

(a)(43)(F) (Supp. II 1996).
     We agree with the Immigration Judge that, consequently, the respondent is not eligible for asylum. See sections 208(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i) of the
Act, 

(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i) (Supp. II 1996). The remaining
question that we must address, however, is whether the respondent, who
was convicted of an aggravated felony and sentenced to less than 5 years’
incarceration, is barred from withholding of removal under section
241(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
     In removal proceedings, section 241(b)(3)(A) of the Act specifies that
there shall be a restriction on removal to a country where an alien’s life or
freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.1 Section
241(b)(3)(B) of the Act provides certain exceptions to the restriction. In the
instant case, we are concerned with section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act,
which states that an alien is ineligible for withholding if “the alien, having
been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the community of the United States.” The final paragraph of section
241(b)(3)(B) of the Act states the following:

   For purposes of clause (ii), an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony
   (or felonies) for which the alien has been sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of at least 5 years shall be considered to have committed a particularly serious
   crime. The previous sentence shall not preclude the Attorney General from determining that, notwithstanding the length of sentence imposed, an alien has been convicted
   of a particularly serious crime.

    We recognize that the “particularly serious crime” exception to our
obligation to protect those who face or have suffered mistreatment on


     1
       This provision was added by section 305(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of 

 Stat. 3009-
546, 3009-602 (enacted Sept. 30, 1996) (effective Apr. 1, 1997).


                                           460
                                                                  Interim Decision #3374


account of one of the bases contained in the refugee definition is appropriately invoked when extending such protection would threaten the safety and
security of our own citizens. See Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria For
Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees para. 154, at 36 (Geneva, 1992)
(“Handbook”).2 According to the Handbook, while the United Nations
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature Jan. 31,
1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. No. 6577, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into
force Oct. 4, 1967; for United States Nov. 1, 1968) (“Protocol”), does not
require signatory states to tolerate nonnationals who represent a security
risk or a danger to the community, it contemplates that a signatory state will
make an individual assessment within the context of the state’s legal system, including the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, in determining whether the individual refugee constitutes a danger
to the community. Handbook, supra, paras. 155, 157, at 36-37.

           A. Applicable Legal Standard: Historical Background

     The text of the current withholding of removal provision is based on
our accession to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,
applying articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S.
150 (entered into force Apr. 22, 1954) (“Convention”), to all refugees,
without regard to geographic or other limitations contained in the
Convention as to events occurring before 1951.3 Protocol, supra, art. 1,
para. 1; see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

 (1987) (“If
one thing is clear from the legislative history of the new definition of
‘refugee,’ and indeed the entire 1980 Act, it is that one of Congress’ primary
purposes was to bring United States refugee law into conformance with the
. . . Protocol . . . .”).4 Article 33 of the Convention provides that “[n]o
Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be
threatened,” but that this protection “may not, however, be claimed by a


      2
       The Handbook is a practical guide intended to assist government officials in applying
international refugee laws. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 

 (1987); Matter of
Rodriguez-Palma, 

 (BIA 1980).
      3
       The origins of former section 243(h) of the Act, 

(h) (1994), the withholding of deportation provision that section 241(b)(3) of the Act replaced, can be traced back
to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 

.
      4
       Refugee Act of 1980, 

 Stat. 102; see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No.
96-781 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 160, 161; H.R. Rep. No. 96-608, at 6, 17-18
(1979) (stating Congress’ intent to comply precisely with the Protocol).

                                             461
Interim Decision #3374


refugee . . . who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.
Convention, supra, art. 33 (emphasis added).
     The Board originally addressed the question of what would be a “particularly serious crime” in Matter of Frentescu, 

 (BIA
1982), modified, Matter of C-, 

 (BIA 1992), Matter of
Gonzalez, 

 (BIA 1988). In Matter of Frentescu, the Board
held that “[i]n judging the seriousness of a crime, we look to such factors
as the nature of the conviction, the circumstances and underlying facts of
the conviction, the type of sentence imposed, and, most importantly,
whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will
be a danger to the community.” Id. at 247 (emphasis added). Furthermore,
we stated that crimes against persons are more likely to be categorized as
particularly serious, but that there may be instances where crimes (or a
crime) against property will be considered to be particularly serious. Id.
     Subsequently, in 1990, Congress stated categorically that all aggravated felonies constitute particularly serious crimes, rendering any alien
convicted of an aggravated felony ineligible for withholding of deportation. See former section 243(h) of the Act, 

(h) (Supp. II
1990); see also Matter of Q-T-M-T-, 

 (BIA
1996). Congress’ declaration of this per se equation eliminated the basis
for conducting an individual analysis of the underlying facts and circumstances of the crime in any case where the conviction was for an aggravated felony. See Matter of U-M-, 

 (BIA 1991), aff ’d,
Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 

 (9th Cir. 1993), modified, Matter
of C-, supra, clarified, Matter of K-, 

 (BIA 1991); cf.
Matter of Frentescu, supra.5
     On April 24, 1996, Congress enacted section 413(f) of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-
132, 

, 1269 (“AEDPA”), which expressly amended section
243(h) of the Act to provide the Attorney General discretionary authority to
override the categorical bar that designated every aggravated felony a particularly serious crime, if she determined it necessary to do so in order to
comply with our nonrefoulement obligation under the Protocol. Matter of
Q-T-M-T-, supra, at 653-54. Soon thereafter, on September 30, 1996,



    5
     The Board has interpreted this exception as providing that once an
alien’s crime is determined to be “particularly serious,” it necessarily follows that the alien “constitutes a danger to the community.” Matter of
Carballe, 

 (BIA 1986), modified, Matter of C-, supra,
clarified, Matter of K-, 

 (BIA 1991), modified on other
grounds, Matter of Gonzalez, supra.

                                    462
                                                               Interim Decision #3374


Congress enacted section 305(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of 

 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-602 (“IIRIRA”), which again amended former
section 243(h) of the Act and recodified it as section 241(b)(3) of the Act,
effective on or after April 1, 1997.6
     In construing the amendment of former section 243(h) in the context of
a deportation case, the Board had reasoned that section 413(f) of the
AEDPA was best read as introducing a narrow discretionary exemption
from the surviving exception, which precluded withholding of deportation
under section 243(h)(2)(B) of the Act. See Matter of Q-T-M-T-, supra. The
Board concluded that a presumption that the existing statutory bar was in
compliance with the Protocol was necessary and appropriate because
Congress did not revoke the categorical bar to withholding that had been
imposed in 1990. At that time, taking guidance from the new standard set
by Congress in section 305(a) of the IIRIRA, applicable to proceedings initiated after April 1, 1997, we interpreted section 413(f) of the AEDPA as
creating a “rebuttable presumption” that an alien convicted of an aggravated felony for which a sentence of less than 5 years was imposed has been
convicted of a particularly serious crime. Consequently, the Board held that
in assessing eligibility for withholding of deportation, we must ascertain
“whether there is any unusual aspect of the alien’s particular aggravated
felony conviction that convincingly evidences that his or her crime cannot
rationally be deemed ‘particularly serious’” in light of United States treaty
obligations under the Protocol. Matter of Q-T-M-T-, supra, at 654 (emphasis added); see also Matter of L-S-J-, 

 (BIA 1997).

               B. Applicable Legal Standard: Current Statute

    Congress’ most recent revision of the “particularly serious crime”
clause, in the IIRIRA, accomplished what section 413(f) of the AEDPA had
not: it eliminated the categorical exception to withholding of removal for
every alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Conviction of an aggravated
felony no longer renders every such conviction a “particularly serious
crime” per se, and the basis on which we previously established a rebuttable
presumption in Matter of Q-T-M-T-, supra, no longer exists.
    Instead, the statutory language now in effect and applicable to the case
before us declares that an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated
felony and is sentenced to at least 5 years’ imprisonment has been convict-


     6
      The relevant provision of former section 243(h)(2)(B) of the Act was applicable to an
alien who “constitutes a danger to the community of the United States.” Id. (emphasis
added). The current clause now applies to an alien who “is a danger to the community of the
United States.” Section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act (emphasis added).

                                           463
Interim Decision #3374


ed of a particularly serious crime, but expressly affords the Attorney
General discretion to exercise her judgment as to whether the conviction is
for a particularly serious crime when an alien has been sentenced to less
than 5 years for the very same offense. In extending this authority to the
Attorney General, Congress used permissive language, stating that its conclusion that an alien sentenced to at least 5 years had committed a particularly serious crime “shall not preclude the Attorney General from determining that, notwithstanding the length of sentence imposed, an alien has
been convicted of a particularly serious crime.” Section 241(b)(3)(B)
(emphasis added). Congress neither imposed any presumption that an
aggravated felony carrying a sentence of fewer than 5 years is a particularly serious crime, nor called for any blanket exercise of the Attorney
General’s authority to determine the applicability of section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii)
of the Act in such cases. See INS v. 

(addressing the proper construction of Congress’ use of different language
in different sections of the same act); see also Matter of Fuentes-Campos,

 (BIA 1997).
     We observe that, in enacting section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, Congress
plainly stated its intent to determine that convictions that fall within the
aggravated felony definition are deemed to be “particularly serious” based
on the length of sentence imposed, rather than in terms of the category or
type of crime that resulted in the conviction. Cf. Matter of Gonzalez, supra.
If the statutory language used constitutes a plain expression of congressional intent as to the precise question addressed in the statute, it must be
given effect. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., 

 (1984). Notably, Congress eliminated its previous per se equation of all aggravated felonies with particularly serious
crimes. Cf. Matter of Q-T-M-T-, supra. Congress easily could have designated categories of aggravated felonies that it considered to be particularly
serious crimes—either independently or in conjunction with a specific sentence—but it did not do so.
     The Attorney General has discretionary authority to determine whether
an aggravated felony conviction resulting in a sentence of less than 5 years
is a particularly serious crime under section 241(b)(3)(B)(ii) of the Act. See
Matter of Frentescu, supra; see also Yepes-Prado v. INS, 

(9th Cir. 1992) (“The IJ or the BIA must . . . consider the relative seriousness of the particular conduct of which the petitioner was convicted.”)
(referring to consideration of a waiver application); Beltran-Zavala v. INS,

 (9th Cir. 1990) (clarifying that a categorical classification of a certain type of crime as being particularly serious would be inappropriate, because Congress could have elected to “erect per se classifications of crimes precluding . . . benefits” and did not do so). In the absence
of a satisfactory showing that every robbery conviction, or even every
armed robbery conviction, under this or any other statute constitutes a “par-

                                     464
                                                                   Interim Decision #3374


ticularly serious crime” in all cases, consideration of the individual facts
and circumstances is appropriate.7 See Matter of L-S-J-, supra, at 974-75
(finding a particularly serious crime under the former “rebuttable presumption” standard by considering the particular type of crime committed, the
sentence imposed, and certain aggravating factors such as the facts that the
respondent brandished a handgun, threatened violence, and endangered the
lives of several individuals who were victims of the robbery).


 III. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RESPONDENT’S CONVICTION
 UNDER THE CURRENT WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL STATUTE

     Adopting an individual analysis approach to consider and characterize
the respondent’s conviction under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, we conclude that the respondent has been convicted of an aggravated felony that is
a particularly serious crime. Looking first to the statute under which the
respondent was convicted to determine the nature of the conviction, we find
that robbery in the first degree, as defined under the Washington statute,
requires that “in the commission of a robbery or of immediate flight therefrom,” the offender either “[i]s armed with a deadly weapon; . . . [d]isplays
what appears to be a firearm or other deadly weapon; or . . . [i]nflicts bodily injury.” Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.200(1) (West 1998).
     In addition, looking to a certified copy of the “Judgment and Sentence”
that was submitted by the Service, we find that the respondent was sentenced to 55 months in prison, just 5 months short of the 5-year period of
imprisonment that would have rendered him statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal. See section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act. Furthermore, he
was ordered to pay restitution of over $5,000. We note that the “Judgment
and Sentence” in the record contains an appendix in which the respondent
is “further ordered” to comply with a 2-year period of community placement on account of having been convicted of a serious violent offense after
July 1, 1990. This constitutes an additional “sentence” to 2 years or up to
the period of earned release awarded pursuant to Washington law, which
imposes specific conditions on the respondent’s ability to function in the
community. The appendix notes that all conditions are held in abeyance
while the respondent is out of the country pursuant to deportation.
     The length of sentence and additional commitment to community
placement has a bearing on our characterization of the respondent’s conviction. A sentence of nearly 5 years indicates that the sentencing judge felt it


      7
       We leave for another day the question of whether, and under what conditions, it might
be appropriate, as a matter of discretion, for the Attorney General to designate certain offenses as being particularly serious crimes per se.

                                             465
Interim Decision #3374


important to keep the respondent out of the community for a reasonably
long period of time, and that, considering the requirements of the state
statute, his reintroduction to the community had to be closely monitored.
     As evidence of the aggravating circumstances of the crime, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service provided a properly certified copy
of the “Amended Information,” which reveals that the respondent, together
with two other individuals, took jewelry and a purse and its contents from
each of the adult victims, against their will, using force or threatened force,
which included displaying a handgun. Cf. Handbook, supra, para. 157, at
37. Moreover, a certified copy of a Supplemental Certification for
Determination of Probable Cause reflects that at least one of the victims,
who was a female, was taken out of the shower during the robbery and that
a 6-year-old child was present and witnessed the respondent going into his
mother’s room and in and out of the house during the robbery. This document also includes a request for bail in the amount of $100,000, alleging
that the defendants “may be responsible for numerous robberies in
California and Oregon . . . [which] involve violence and the use of
firearms.”
     This evidence indicates that the crime underlying the conviction
involved the invasion of a home, and that two women and a child—one of
whose vulnerability was exacerbated by being seized while in the shower—
were confronted violently by the respondent and his companions and were
placed in fear for their safety. The respondent, for his part, did not offer any
other evidence of the nature or circumstances of the crime, nor did he provide any evidence of mitigating circumstances relevant to our determination
of the seriousness of the crime. Cf. Handbook, supra, para. 157, at 37. The
respondent’s statement on appeal does not challenge the conclusion of the
Immigration Judge that his conviction was for a particularly serious crime,
other than to report that while in prison he worked regularly and recognizes
his mistakes, that he fears returning to Laos, and that he has a wife and children in this country.
     Our focus is on circumstances related to the crime for which the
respondent was convicted, and not on any equities or other favorable discretionary factors. See Matter of Frentescu, supra; cf. Matter of Marin, 

 (BIA 1978). From the information in the record it appears
that the respondent played an equal part in the robbery, that he was armed
with a handgun, that his victims were two women and a child, and that the
robbery appears to have occurred during a break-in at the victims’ home
while they were present. Whatever may be the respondent’s present level of
reformation or remorse, the record contains no evidence explaining his
involvement in the crime or mitigating the seriousness of his violent invasion of the victims’ home and commission of a robbery using a deadly
weapon. Similarly, the record contains no evidence of any basis for a downward departure from the 55- to 60-month sentence range, or cause for

                                      466
                                                       Interim Decision #3374


leniency on the part of the trial court in levying a sentence of almost 5 years.
     In sum, we find that the nature of the crime, the length of sentence, and
the circumstances under which the robbery was committed support the conclusion that the respondent’s conviction for robbery in the first degree while
armed with a handgun constitutes a particularly serious crime. See Matter
of Frentescu, supra; see also Matter of L-S-J-, supra (holding that conviction for armed robbery constitutes a particularly serious crime rendering the
alien ineligible for withholding of deportation). The commission of a robbery offense entailing these circumstances is a “particularly serious crime”
as defined in the statute, notwithstanding the fact that the sentence imposed
was for less than 5 years. The result is that the respondent constitutes a danger to the community. We therefore concur with the Immigration Judge’s
conclusion that the respondent is ineligible for withholding of removal. See
section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act. The respondent’s conviction also renders
him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See sections 240A(a)(3),
(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C) (Supp. II 1996).
     Accordingly, as the respondent has not established eligibility for any
form of relief from removal, his appeal will be dismissed.
     ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
Board Member Anthony C. Moscato did not participate in the decision in
this case.




                                      467