Leonard Alfred Brownrigg v. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

356 F.2d 877, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7141
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 1966
Docket20354_1
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 356 F.2d 877 (Leonard Alfred Brownrigg v. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Leonard Alfred Brownrigg v. The United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 356 F.2d 877, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7141 (9th Cir. 1966).

Opinion

BARNES, Circuit Judge:

This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. We have jurisdiction. (8 U.S.C. § 1105a.) Appellant was convicted of illicit possession of marijuana, violating § 11530, Health and Safety Code of the State of California. Appellant denied that a conviction existed because of subsequent so-called “ex-pungement” proceedings — California Penal Code, § 1203.4.

We have already held that section does not wipe out the conviction or “expunge” it for the purposes of § 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. den. 382 U.S. 840, 86 S.Ct. 88, 15 L.Ed.2d 81; Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 326, 15 L.Ed.2d 344. We follow said cases.

There was no error in admitting evidence of appellant’s conviction despite “expungement;” no matter how illogicál appellant thinks it may be. Congress was legislating with reference to an existing statute (§ 11530, Calif. Health & Safety Code), and not with respect to that state statute as it is partially modified by Penal Code § 1203.4. See discussion by Judge Duniway in Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra.

Judge Ely retains the view which he, dissenting, expressed in Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra, but he has authorized the statement that he, yielding to controlling precedent, concurs in this opinion.

Affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Borja
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 728 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)
United States v. Bonanno
452 F. Supp. 743 (N.D. California, 1978)
TUCKER
15 I. & N. Dec. 337 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1975)
ZINGIS
14 I. & N. Dec. 621 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1974)
CRUZADO
14 I. & N. Dec. 513 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1973)
ANDRADE
14 I. & N. Dec. 364 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 F.2d 877, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 7141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-alfred-brownrigg-v-the-united-states-immigration-and-ca9-1966.