Opinion · United States Board of Immigration Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 6 IN Dec. 461 (BIA 1954)

6 IN Dec. 461

Type: Opinion
Court: United States Board of Immigration Appeals
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1954-12-17
Topic: general

IN THE MATTER OF G----, 6 IN Dec. 461 (BIA 1954) IN THE MATTER OF G----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings. A-5707845.Board of Immigration AppealsExecutive Office for Immigration ReviewU.S. Department of Justice Decided by Board December 17, 1954. Warrant of deportation — Reinstatement of — Section 242 (f) of Immigration and Nationality Act.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed IN THE MATTER OF G----, 6 IN Dec. 461 (BIA 1954). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

IN THE MATTER OF G----,6 IN Dec. 461(BIA 1954)

IN THE MATTER OF G----. In DEPORTATION Proceedings.

A-5707845.

Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

U.S. Department of Justice

Decided by Board December 17, 1954.

Warrant of deportation — Reinstatement of — Section 242 (f) ofImmigration and Nationality Act.

Section 242 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically includes deportations which may have occurred before its enactment and applies where the criminal charge under the Immigration Act of 1917 upon which respondent was previously deported corresponds to a charge which may be found in subsection 241 (a) (4) and is one of the charges enumerated in subsection 242 (e) of the 1952 act.

CHARGE:

Warrant: Act of 1952 — Entry after deportation without permission. Deportation order based on charge in section 242 (e) of the act, indecent liberties.

BEFORE THE BOARD

Discussion:This case comes forward on appeal from an order of a special inquiry officer dated June 23, 1954, directing that a warrant of deportation which had been issued in respondent's case on January 30, 1937, be reinstated and he be deported from the United States thereunder in the manner provided by law.

The respondent is a native and citizen of Canada, age 54, single, who was originally admitted to the United States for permanent residence on June 3, 1924. On January 30, 1937, a warrant was issued for his deportation on the grounds that he was subject to deportation under the Immigration Act of 1917 as a person likely to become a public charge at the time of his entry; that he admitted having committed a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry, to wit: indecent liberties with a female; and that he had been sentenced to imprisonment of one year or more because of a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years after entry, to wit: indecent liberties with a female. About a year or two subsequent to the issuance of the warrant of deportation he paid a visit to Canada for a period of two or three days.

Section 16854, Title 23, Compiled Laws of Michigan (1929), which covers the crime of taking indecent liberties with a femalePage 462under sixteen was incorporated into section 28.3688, Title 28, Michigan Statutes Annotated (1938). We have held that a violation of section 28.3688 is a crime involving moral turpitude (Matterof P----,A-3809544, April 26, 1946). The respondent was, therefore, properly found deportable on the criminal charge in the original deportation proceedings.

Counsel, by brief and oral argument on appeal, contends (1) that the respondent did not deport himself when he left the United States after the issuance of the warrant of deportation; and (2) that the order of deportation became void when the Immigration and Nationality Act went into effect and that consequently the present proceedings which are based on the warrant are also void. He, therefore, requests that the proceedings be terminated.

Section 1 (b) of the Act of March 4, 1929, which was in effect at the time of the respondent's departure while the order of deportation was outstanding, provided in pertinent part that: "* * * any alien ordered deported * * * who has left the United States shall be considered to have been deported in pursuance of law * * *."

It is clear, therefore, that the respondent was deported when he departed to Canada on a visit.

Subsection 242 (f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides "Should the Attorney General find that any alien has unlawfully reentered the United States after having previously departed or been deported pursuant to an order of deportation,whether before or after the date of enactment of this Act,on any ground described in any of the paragraphs enumerated in subsection (e), the previous order of deportation shall be deemed to be reinstated from its original date and such alien shall be deported under such previous order at any time subsequent to such reentry." [Emphasis supplied.]

It is to be noted that this subsection specifically includes deportations which may have occurred before the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act and consequently counsel's contention that the original order of deportation became void has no basis.

Since one of the criminal charges under the Immigration Act of 1917 upon which the respondent was previously deported corresponds to a charge which may be found in subsection 241 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and is one of the charges enumerated in subsection 242 (e) of the latter act, his case falls squarely within the provisions of section 242 (f) of said act. The special inquiry officer, therefore, properly reinstated the previous warrant of deportation and the appeal will be dismissed.

Order:It is ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

Page 463