FLORES-GONZALEZ

11 I. & N. Dec. 485
CourtBoard of Immigration Appeals
DecidedJuly 1, 1966
Docket1551
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 11 I. & N. Dec. 485 (FLORES-GONZALEZ) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Immigration Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
FLORES-GONZALEZ, 11 I. & N. Dec. 485 (bia 1966).

Opinion

Interim Decision #1551

Magma or FLORES-GONZALBZ

. A-6819970

, In. Deportation Proceedings Decided by Board January 20, 196V Since the Department of the Army has not taken any steps to revoke ab initio the honorable discharge issued respondent, an applicant for suspension of deportation who has served a minimum of 24 months in an .ftetiva duty-

status in the Armed Forces of the United States" following which he was separated "under honorable conditions," he comes within the purview of • section 244(b), Immigration and Nationality Act; as amended, notwith- standing gnat under Army regulations be may be dropped from the rolls Of the army as a result of his conviction which forms the basis .fOr his deportation. • • • CHARGE: • - • ' Order: Act of 1952—Seetion 241(a) (11) 18 U.S.C. 1251(a) (11))--Convic- tion for possession of marihuana.

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico- appeals from an order entered by the special inquiry officer on October 4,- 1965 directing his deportation 'to. Mexico on the charge that he has been convicted of a law relating to the illicit possession-of marihuana in violation of Article 725(b) of the Texas Penal Code. Deportability on the stated charge is conceded. The appeal is directed to the denial Of the respondent's application for suspension Of deportation filed pursuant to section 24t(b) of the Immigration incl. Nationality Act. The respondent, an unmarried male alien, -28 years of age was admitted to the United States as an immigrant at the port of El Paso, Texas on November 29, 1947. He'as convicted on - February 18; 1968 in Bexar County, Texas for the offense of "possession of Marihuana in violation of Article 725(b) of the Texas Penal, Code. The respondent concedes that he is deportable as charged in the order to show cause. The respondent has applied for suspension of deportation pur- suant to section 244(a) (9) of the -Immigration and Nationality

485 Interim Decigion 41551 ' Act. Section 244(a) (2) provides, inter 924 that an alien who is deportable as a narcotic offender must establish that he has been physically present in the United States for a "continuous period" of not less than 10 years immediately following the commission of the Act constituting the grcitmd, for deportation and during this period he must establish that he has been a person of good moral character. Since the Siidance establishes that the respondent was - - charged with possession of marihuana, on October 28,,1962, he can- not qualify for suspension of deportation under section 244(a) (2) ; of the Immigration and Nationality Act Unless by reason of his "active-duty status in the Armed Forces of the United States" he ' comes within the exemption from the "continuous physical presence" requirement provided by section 244(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act? The record establishes that .the respondent was inducted into the armed- services at San Antonio, Texas on April -26, 1960; - The special inquiry officer finds that the respondent served in an. "active-duty status in. the Armed Forces, of the United States" for a -period of sufficient duration' to qualify - under section 244(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The special inquiry officer concludes however that since the respondent was dropped from:the rolls of the Army on January 19, 1965 by reason of his conviction for possession of marihuana he is statutorily ineligible for relief under section 244(a) (2) because he was not separated from the Armed' Services under honorable conditions. The Service has filed a brief supporting the szecial inquiry officer's conclusion and orally argued the case before this Board. _ The special inquiry officer and ' the Service reason that there is a continuing - responsibility on the part of the respondent to comply -with the discharge provisions of section 244(b) notwithstanding the fact that he (respondent) served the required two years of "active-duty status" in the Armed Forces and was discharged "under honorable conditions" prior to the time 'Section 244(b) of the Immigration and - Rationality Act reads as follows: (b) The requirement of continuous physical presence in UM United States specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be applicable to an alien who (A) has served for a minimum period of twenty- four months in an active-duty status in the ArMed Forces of the United States and, if separated from such service, was separated under honorable condi- tions, and (B) at the time of his enlistment or induction was in the United States. 'The evidence establishes that the respondent wad inducted into the Armed Services on April 26, 1960 and discharged "under honorable conditions" on May 15, 1962 when he was transferred to the Army Reserves.

486 illthrkrtL P.04sioa 44451 that he committed•the act which serves as the -basis for.his deporta- tion. . Counsel foi the respondent-urges rarrbr lunthe Conclusion..of the. special inquiry officer because (1) the•ecord 'id completely devoid of any evidence showing that the tespondent•was- notgeeparated-under honorable conditions and (2) there is no 'evidence of record that- respondeit was 'dropped from the rolls' of thi3 1Atiny" itecerfi- ance with the procedure set forth in piregratih 10 fof gfmy Ipegula- tions 185478.3 We find nothing in the .statate ;or 'tile'Preckents“tited b? the special inquiry officer ine,the Tkial rig:Aix:es' a finding . .of inelig,ibility' under' t4e /0114; 1s -(A .segti* 244(b): after the :alien has billy serVed...the xequired...two Tian 'Of "active-duty status in the Armed Forces f United' o States"; • has been. discharged from the Armed Imes, "under honorable con- ditions"' and ,then after a lapse oC some two and one half years is dropped •frem•the rollsiof the Army .Reserves by reason: of a con- viction of a narcotic charge xxonmittostafter the completion of the required two years of active-duty :status;' Section.244(b). provides in substance that the.requirement of 10 years of .physical presence after the commission of a proscribed 'act. which render§ an alien -deportable is waived in the case of an applicant for suspension .of deportation Who "lies served for a minimum peried'uf.24 Months in an active-duty. states in the Armed' Forces of the United' States .and if separated from- such service' the discharge'was honor- -able conditions." .(EmpliFi's "added.) ' The resp'ondentimeets these requirements. The term "if separated- front- such amide' refers to the completion "of "94 months of action duty status in gm Armed -

.Forces of the United States" following which. there Wad a -Sepal:a- fion "under honorable conditions." (Emphasis added.) Our decision in this regard is not contrary to the conclusion reached Matter of Peralta, Int. Dec. No. 1290, BIA, gk.ne.19, 1968. the definitions- of the terms "active duty" and ; ''Paragiqh 10 of Array Regulations 135-178, provides: - 10. Dropping from the rolls A. reservist sentenced to confinement in a Federal or State penitentiary or correctional instittitIon after having been found guilty of an offense by a civil court and who* sentence has become Anal, whether or not actually confined, may be dropped from the rolls of the army. This act will be accomplished in special or letter orders. Waited States 47. Rosner, 249 F.2d 49 (C.A. 2, 1957); (Xenia v. Brooker, 173 F. Stipp. 493; Natter of Perolta, Int. Dee. No. 1290; Matter of Woo, Int. Mee. No. 1297.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft
319 F.3d 365 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 I. & N. Dec. 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flores-gonzalez-bia-1966.