Interim Decision #3364

Interim Decision #3364

In re Mark Gerald PUNU, Respondent

File A72 423 857 - Houston

Decided August 18, 1998

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board of Immigration Appeals

(1) The third prong of the standard for determining whether a conviction exists with regard to

deferred adjudications has been eliminated pursuant to section 101(a)(48)(A) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (Supp. II 1996). Matter of

Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988), superseded.

(2) A deferred adjudication under article 42.12, § 5 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure

is a conviction for immigration purposes.

Peter D. Willliamson, Esquire, for the respondent

Lisa Luis, Assistant District Counsel, for the Immigration and Naturalization Service

Before:

Board En Banc: SCHMIDT, Chairman; DUNNE, Vice Chairman; VACCA, HEILMAN, HOLMES, HURWITZ, VILLAGELIU, COLE, MATHON, GUENDELSBERGER, and JONES, Board Members. Concurring Opinion: GRANT, Board

Member, joined by FILPPU, Board Member. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion:

ROSENBERG, Board Member.

VILLAGELIU, Board Member:

The respondent appeals from the April 17, 1997, decision of the

Immigration Judge finding him deportable as charged, as an aggravated

felon convicted of attempted murder, and ineligible for relief from deportation. The appeal will be dismissed.

I. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

The respondent is a native and citizen of the Philippines who was

admitted into the United States on or about September 9, 1992, as a nonimmigrant, later adjusting his status to that of a lawful permanent resident

of the United States on January 6, 1993. The record reflects that on August

26, 1993, the respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the 179th

224

Interim Decision #3364

District Court of Harris County, Texas, to a charge of attempted murder. On

that same date the trial judge deferred adjudication of the criminal charge

and placed the respondent on probation until August 25, 2001. See Tex.

Crim. P. Code Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (West 1993).

On January 10, 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service

issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing (Form I-221), charging the respondent with deportability under section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) (1994),

alleging that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined

under section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (1994). In finding the respondent deportable, the Immigration Judge held that his deferred

adjudication constituted a conviction for an aggravated felony under the

new definition of the term “conviction,” which was enacted by section 322

of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

1996, Division C of Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-628

(“IIRIRA”), and codified in section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §

1101(a)(48)(A) (Supp. II 1996).1

II. ARGUMENTS

On appeal the respondent offers several constitutional challenges to the

application of the newly enacted definition of the term “conviction” to his

August 16, 1993, deferred adjudication, claiming violations of the Fifth

Amendment’s due process, full faith and credit, and ex post facto clauses.

Similarly, the respondent offers a number of arguments why his deferred

adjudication cannot constitute a “conviction” for immigration purposes,

including the following: all direct appeals of his adjudication have not been

exhausted; the statute does not specifically reference deferred adjudications; the Texas deferred adjudication statute provides for dismissal of

charges upon completion of probation; and the new definition of conviction

is inapplicable, as his deferred adjudication was entered prior to its enactment. The respondent also maintains that Martinez-Montoya v. INS, 904

Section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act provides as follows:

1

The term “conviction” means, with respect to an alien, a formal judgment of guilt

of the alien entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, where—

(i) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty

or nolo contendere or has admitted sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt, and

(ii) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the

alien’s liberty to be imposed.

225

Interim Decision #3364

F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1990), is controlling precedent in the circuit in which

this case arises, and that it mandates an outcome contrary to that arrived at

by the Immigration Judge in this case.

In response, the Service contends that Congress deliberately broadened

the scope of the definition of a “conviction,” as enunciated by this Board in

Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988), in order to obviate the

effects of the various state ameliorative provisions which may follow a finding or admission of guilt and imposition of punishment.2 The Service

asserts that Congress has abolished the requirement that an adjudication be

“final” and eliminated the third prong of the Matter of Ozkok definition of

a conviction.

III. ANALYSIS

Initially, we reject the respondent’s contention that the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Martinez-Montoya v.

INS, supra, is controlling, although this Board has historically followed a

circuit court’s precedent in cases arising within that circuit. See Matter of

Anselmo, 20 I&N Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989), Where Congress has subsequently spoken to the precise question at issue and its intent is clear, effect

must be given to congressional intent and “that is the end of the matter.”

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S.

837, 843 (1984), Basic principles of statutory construction mandate that

courts first “must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of

Congress.” Id. at 842-43. In determining a statute’s plain meaning, we

assume that “Congress intends the words in its enactments to carry ‘their

ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.’” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v.

Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993) (quoting

Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)); see also INS v. Phinpathya,

464 U.S. 183, 189 (1984), In ascertaining the plain meaning of the statute,

the Board “must look to the particular statutory language at issue, as well

as the language and design of the statute as a whole.” K Mart Corp. v.

Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 291 (1988), Where Congress’ intent is not plain-

2

In Matter of Ozkok, supra, we found that a conviction exists, for immigration purposes,

where an alien has had a formal judgment of guilt entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt

has been withheld, where the following three-pronged test is met: (1) a judge or jury has

found the alien guilty or he has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or has admitted

sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilty; (2) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the person’s liberty to be imposed; and (3) a judgment or adjudication of guilty may be entered if the person violates the terms of his probation or fails to

comply with the requirements of the court’s order, without availability of further proceedings

regarding his guilt or innocence of the original charge.

226

Interim Decision #3364

ly expressed or subject to an ordinary meaning, we are to determine a reasonable interpretation of the language that effectuates Congress’ intent.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., supra.

Similarly, the rules of statutory construction dictate that we take into

account the design of the statute as a whole. K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.,

supra. In doing so, we may examine the legislative history. Although legislative statements have less force than the clear and plain language of the

statute, such statements are helpful to corroborate and underscore a reasonable interpretation of the statute. See, e.g., Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25,

32 (1982).

We agree with the Service that Congress has clearly and unambiguously defined the term “conviction” for immigration purposes and thus has spoken directly to the issue before the Board. Congress has expressly stated

that its intent in enacting section 322 of the IIRIRA was to “broaden[] the

scope of the definition of ‘conviction’ beyond that adopted by the Board of

Immigration Appeals in Matter of Ozkok.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at

224 (1996) (“Joint Explanatory Statement”), In this regard, the conference

report states:

As the Board noted in Ozkok, there exist in the various States a myriad of provisions

for ameliorating the effects of a conviction. As a result, aliens who have clearly been

guilty of criminal behavior and whom Congress intended to be considered “convicted” have escaped the immigration consequences normally attendant upon a conviction.

Ozkok, while making it more difficult for alien criminals to escape such consequences,

does not go far enough to address situations where a judgment of guilt or imposition

of sentence is suspended, conditioned upon the alien’s future good behavior. . . . In

some States, adjudication may be “deferred” upon a finding or confession of guilt, and

a final judgment of guilt may not be imposed if the alien violates probation until there

is an additional proceeding regarding the alien’s guilt or innocence. In such cases the

third prong of the Ozkok definition prevents the original finding or confession of guilt

to be considered a “conviction” for deportation purposes. This new provision, by

removing the third prong of Ozkok, clarifies Congressional intent that even in cases

where adjudication is “deferred,” the original finding or confession of guilt is sufficient to establish a “conviction” for purposes of the immigration laws.

Id.

Similarly, the purpose of the newly enacted section 101(a)(48)(A) was

summarized as follows: “It broadens the definition of ‘conviction’ for immigration law purposes to include all aliens who have admitted to or been

found to have committed crimes. This will make it easier to remove criminal aliens, regardless of specific procedures in States for deferred adjudication . . . .” H.R. Rep. No. 104-879 (1997), available in 1997 WL 9288 at

*295. Thus, it is clear that Congress deliberately modified the definition of

conviction to include deferred adjudications.

The Texas statute under which the respondent received an order of

deferred adjudication provides:

227

Interim Decision #3364

[W]hen in its opinion the best interest of society and the defendant will be served, the

court may, after receiving a plea of guilty or plea of nolo contendere, hearing the evidence, and finding that it substantiates the defendant’s guilt, defer further proceedings

without entering an adjudication of guilt, and place the defendant on probation.

Tex. Crim. P. Code art. 42.12, § 5(a).

The record reflects that the respondent received a deferred adjudication

for attempted murder on August 26, 1993. The respondent concedes that, in

conjunction with his deferred adjudication, he was placed on probation for

8 years. The respondent’s suggestion that probation is not a form of punishment or a restraint upon his liberty is incorrect. The Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals has specifically held that an order of deferred adjudication itself can be regarded as a form of punishment. Watson v. State, 924

S.W.2d 711, 714 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Moreover, the Supreme Court has

consistently recognized probation as a form of punishment or restraint. See

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 636 (1994); United States v.

Granderson, 511 U.S. 39 (1994); Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361,

363 (1989); Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 640 (1988) (stating that a fixed

term of probation is itself a punishment).

In light of the undisputed facts presented, we find that the Immigration

Judge properly found that the respondent was convicted of attempted murder, an aggravated felony, for immigration purposes. Section 101(a)(48)(A)

of the Act. Moreover, while we recognize that the Texas deferred adjudication statute allows for the possibility of further appellate review if certain

circumstances occur,3 we find that the possibility of such review is not

determinative. Congress, for purposes of deferred adjudications, has specifically excluded from the definition of “conviction” the third prong of the

standard enunciated in Matter of Ozkok, supra, requiring that a judgment or

adjudication of guilt may be entered if the alien violated probation, without

further proceedings regarding guilt or innocence on the original charge.

Although such further proceedings are potentially available under the Texas

deferred adjudication statute, Congress has specifically explained that it

intended to obviate the need to inquire into that fact.

The relevant statute further provides:

3

On violation of a condition of probation imposed under Subsection (a) of this section,

the defendant may be arrested and detained . . . . The defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. No appeal may be taken from this determination.

After an adjudication of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment,

pronouncement of sentence, granting of probation, and defendant’s appeal continue as

if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred.

Tex. Crim. P. Code art. 42.12, § 5(b).

228

Interim Decision #3364

Based upon our conclusion that Congress expressly modified the test

delineated in Matter of Ozkok, we find that Martinez-Montoya v. INS,

supra, no longer controls the issue before us. That case was premised on

our reasoning in Matter of Ozkok, supra, which Congress has now affirmatively revised. Moreover, “[i]n the absence of a plain indication to the

contrary, . . . it is to be assumed when Congress enacts a statute that it

does not intend to make its application dependent on state law.” NLRB v.

Natural Gas Utility Dist., 402 U.S. 600, 603 (1971). Congress has

expressed its intent that the application of the definition of the term “conviction” to deferred adjudications not be dependent on the vagaries of

State law, as the new definition is specifically intended to “make it easier to remove criminal aliens, regardless of specific procedures in States

for deferred adjudications.” H.R. Rep. No. 104-879 (1997) (emphasis

added).

The respondent’s remaining arguments are similarly unavailing. The

respondent correctly noted that this Board cannot entertain constitutional

challenges to the statutes we administer. See Matter of Awadh, 15 I&N Dec.

775 (BIA 1976); Matter of Bulos, 15 I&N Dec. 645 (BIA 1976); Matter of

Chery and Hassan, 15 I&N Dec. 380 (BIA 1975), Moreover, it is well

established that the prohibition against ex post facto laws does not apply to

deportation statutes. Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531-32 (1954);

Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 594-95 (1952); Matter of GomezGiraldo, 20 I&N Dec. 957 (BIA 1995); Matter of C-, 20 I&N Dec. 529

(BIA 1992), Furthermore, the Supreme Court, this Board, and the circuit in

which this case arises have consistently held that Congress may constitutionally attach new immigration consequences to past criminal conduct.

Lehman v. United States ex rel. Carson, 353 U.S. 685, 690 (1957);

Harisiades v. Shaugnessy, supra; Ignacio v. INS, 955 F.2d 295, 298 (5th Cir.

1992); Matter of Gomez-Giraldo, supra.

In closing, we note that the respondent’s argument that the new definition of a conviction is inapplicable to his appeal is without merit.

Section 322(c) of the IIRIRA specifically states that amendments made by

section 322(a) “shall apply to convictions and sentences entered before,

on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act.” Matter of S-S-, 21 I&N

Dec. 900, at 902 (BIA 1997); Matter of Yeung, 21 I&N Dec. 610 (BIA

1997); see also Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994)

(noting that when new statutory provisions attach new legal consequences

to prior events, “settled expectations should not be lightly disrupted,”

unless, as here, Congress expressly states such an intent), The respondent’s reliance on United States v. Gomez-Rodriguez, 96 F.3d 1262 (9th

Cir. 1996), as authority in support of his argument against applying the

revised definition of conviction to his case is misplaced. That case is inapplicable, as it pertains to the effective date of a different section of the Act

which is not at issue here.

229

Interim Decision #3364

IV. CONCLUSION

In view of the record before us, we find that the respondent is

deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. The Immigration

Judge correctly found that the deferred adjudication under the Texas statute

is a conviction for immigration purposes. Accordingly, the respondent’s

appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Board Member Lori L. Scialabba did not participate in the decision in this

case.

CONCURRING OPINION: Edward R. Grant, Board Member, in which

Lauri S. Filppu, joined

I respectfully concur.

I write separately to address the view expressed in the concurring and

dissenting opinion that the “conviction” of record in this case, despite meeting the definition set forth in section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) (Supp. II 1996), nevertheless

may not be considered to support the charge of deportability under the Act

because it is not “final.” This argument misapprehends both the case law

on which it purports to rely as well as the extent of the changes brought

about by the recent addition of section 101(a)(48) to the Act. See Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C

of Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 322, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-628 (“IIRIRA”).

Plainly put, section 101(a)(48) supersedes all prior case law, administrative rulings, and regulations that, in the absence of a clear statutory definition of a “conviction,” sought to determine if an alien “convicted” under

state law also should be considered “convicted” for purposes of federal

immigration law. The interpretations of the term “convicted” in pre-IIRIRA

case law, in Board decisions such as Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546

(1988), and in 8 C.F.R. § 242.2 (1997) no longer have force of law independent of the new statutory definition. Moreover, analysis which looks

first to pre-IIRIRA case law such as Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955)

(per curiam), pre-IIRIRA rulings such as Ozkok, or pre-IIRIRA regulations,

and then seeks to determine what portion of these earlier authorities have

been altered by the addition of section 101(a)(48) to the Act, is the juridical

equivalent of putting new wine into old skins. Our only obligation in this

case is to determine if, based on the respondent’s admission of guilt and the

concomitant restraint on liberty imposed, the respondent has sustained a

“conviction” under the definition now set forth in the Act. This the majority capably has established, and the dissent has conceded.

230

Interim Decision #3364

Despite this concession, the dissent maintains that pre-IIRIRA law,

chiefly Pino v. Landon and its progeny, remains determinative of whether a

“conviction” exists for purposes of the Act. The dissent’s argument rests

largely on the principle that, absent manifest congressional intent to the

contrary, a statutory amendment is not presumed to overturn existing judicial interpretations of the statute. See Matter of Punu, 22 I&N Dec. 224

(BIA 1998)(Rosenberg, concurring and dissenting), The dissent argues that

under pre-IIRIRA authorities, in particular Pino v. Landon and its progeny,

“finality” is an adjunct requirement separate from the determination of

whether a “conviction” has occurred. This requirement, the dissent argues

further, survives the enactment of section 101(a)(48) because Congress did

not utter a clear intention to the contrary. These arguments both misread the

context in which the pre-IIRIRA authorities arose and ignore the clear congressional intent to make a deferred adjudication “final” for purposes of

federal immigration law.

On the first point, it is useful to note why the rules of construction

engendered by Pino must be re-examined in light of the subsequent congressional action in section 322 of the IIRIRA to enact, for the first time, a

definition of “conviction” for all purposes under the Act, including to establish deportability.

The derivation of the “finality” requirement occurred under very different circumstances. “Finality” evolved to impose upon the vagaries of

state law definitions of “conviction” a uniform federal standard that would

accord with the underlying policies of section 241 of the then-recently

enacted Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163.

Pino v. Nicolls, 215 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1954), rev’d on other grounds, Pino

v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955) (per curiam). The United States Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit noted that, as a general matter, federal courts

are governed by the laws of the states in determining whether an alien has

been “convicted” of a crime that will sustain deportability. Pino v. Nicolls,

supra, at 242 (citing United States ex rel. Freislinger v. Smith, 41 F.2d 707

(7th Cir. 1930)). However, the court also observed that under Massachusetts

law, the word “convicted” may be given different meanings in different contexts, id. at 243, and that Massachusetts courts “obvious[ly]” had never

been called upon to resolve when a “conviction” under state law satisfied

the requirements for deportability of an alien under federal law. Thus, the

authority of state law could not solely be relied upon to determine as a matter of federal policy whether an alien’s “social undesirability has . . . been

sufficiently established for purposes of deportation.” Id. at 244.

“In this context,” the court observed, “in the interest of a uniform application of the federal statute, the meaning of the word ‘convicted’ is a federal question to be determined upon due consideration of the policy which §

241(a)(4) of the . . . Act was designed to serve.” Id. at 243. On this point,

the court believed, federal policy would best be served by a rule of con231

Interim Decision #3364

struction that ensured the certainty and reliability of the underlying state

conviction being relied upon to establish deportability in the first instance.

[S]ince legal determination of guilt is made the statutory test of deportability, we

should seek an interpretation of the word “convicted” in § 241(a)(4) as will ensure that

this legal determination has been made with reasonable certainty and finality.

Id. at 244. In “seeking” this definition, the court noted that a formal plea of

guilty is “[p]erhaps” a conviction, “even before the court takes any action

on the matter of sentence.” Id. In the case before it, however, respondent

Pino pled “not guilty,” was tried, and was found guilty. Id. at 241, 244. The

Government contended that this adjudication of guilt, without more, satisfied the statutory requirement of being “convicted.” Id. at 244. The First

Circuit disagreed, noting that judicial resolution of a motion for new trial or

disposition of “normal routine appellate review” are part of the “ordinary

processes of re-examination, the outcome of which perhaps ought to be

awaited before it can be said, with sufficient certainty and definiteness, that

the state has ‘convicted’ the alien of crime.” Id. (emphasis added).

It is clear from Pino and its progeny, therefore, that “finality” is not a

separate requirement in the determination of whether an alien has been

“convicted” for purposes of federal immigration law. Rather, it was an integral element of that determination. See Martinez-Montoya v. INS, 904 F.2d

1018, 1022 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting a “singular lack of evidence of legislative intent to show that Congress has acted to establish a federal standard to

determine whether or not a state criminal conviction has occurred”); Will v.

INS, 447 F.2d 529, 531 (7th Cir. 1971) (noting absence of “anything of significance in the legislative history of the Act casting light on the precise

concept Congress sought to embody by the use of the term ‘convicted’”).

As stated by the Second Circuit in Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686, 691 (2d Cir.

1976), “[A]n alien is not deemed to have been ‘convicted’ of a crime under

the Act until his conviction has attained a substantial degree of finality.”

The First Circuit has agreed, noting that the requirement of finality is

“[s]uperimposed on [Ozkok’s] three-part test” of what constitutes a conviction under the Act, a requirement that is satisfied “if direct appellate review

of the conviction has either been exhausted or waived.” White v. INS, 17

F.3d 475, 479 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing the footnote in Matter of Ozkok, supra,

at 552), Finally, the Fifth Circuit, addressing the issue of whether a Texas

“deferred adjudication” constitutes a conviction, stated that “even if the

deferred adjudication of his guilty plea was considered a conviction,” the

respondent could not “be considered convicted for immigration purposes

because the alleged conviction [was] not final.” Martinez-Montoya v. INS,

supra, at 1025 (citing Pino v. Landon, supra) (emphasis added),

The enactment of section 101(a)(48) of the Act eradicates the key

jurisprudential underpinnings of Pino and its progeny. First, rather than a

232

Interim Decision #3364

“singular lack of . . . legislative intent” on the issue, Martinez-Montoya v.

INS, supra, at 1022, Congress now has clearly spoken on the “precise concept [it] sought to embody by the use of the term ‘convicted’” in the Act,

Will v. INS, supra, at 531. Second, the Board and the courts are no longer

engaged in “seeking [a] definition” of conviction that will provide a “uniform application” that carries forth the policies designed to serve by the

Act. Pino v. Nicholls, supra, at 244. Section 101(a)(48) now sets forth both

the policy and the ground rules for uniform application. Third, the Board

and the courts no longer need speculate on matters such as whether a formal plea of guilty “perhaps” constitutes a conviction under the Act—the

plain language makes it so, provided a concomitant restraint on liberty is

imposed. Sections 101(a)(48)(A)(i), (ii). Fourth, the Board and the courts

no longer are to rely on the vagaries of ameliorative provisions in state law

in order to determine whether a “conviction” exists for purposes of the Act.

H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 224 (1996) (“Joint Explanatory

Statement”).

The pre-IIRIRA “finality” requirement, therefore, must be seen for

what it is: a rule of construction, adopted in the absence of clear congressional intent, to provide a uniform federal rule to a question that might otherwise depend on the vagaries of state law. To the extent that any such rule

of construction survives the enactment of section 101(a)(48) of the Act, it

cannot be applied to derogate the plain legislative intent of Congress. See

generally Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,

467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984) (stating that if Congress has spoken to the precise

question at issue and its intent is clear, both the court and the agency must

give effect to congressional intent and “that is the end of the matter”). In the

case at hand, imposition of an adjunct requirement of “finality” based on

the contingent availability of appeal to an alien who clearly has sustained a

“conviction” within the meaning of section 101(a)(48) would do precisely

that—vitiate the clear and unambiguous intent of Congress to treat as “convicted” for purposes of federal immigration law an alien who has been

granted a deferred adjudication.

The dissent proposes to divide the issue of whether an alien has been

“convicted” for purposes of federal immigration law into two discrete

inquiries: first, whether there has been an adjudication or admission of guilt

sufficient to constitute a “conviction,” and second, whether that conviction

is “final.” The dissent concedes that the deferred adjudication in this case

is a “conviction” under section 101(a)(48), but then denies that it can constitute a basis for deportation because it has not reached a sufficient degree

of “finality.” The result is irrational: a deferred adjudication that fully

meets the Act’s definition of a “conviction” is held, due to the extraneous

requirement of “finality,” not to constitute a “conviction” sufficient to sustain a charge of deportability.

Section 101(a)(48) invalidates such a bifurcated analysis. The single

233

Interim Decision #3364

inquiry is, as it has been since Pino, whether or not a conviction exists for

purposes of federal immigration law. Under Pino and its progeny, the

courts, in the absence of congressional intent to the contrary, imposed the

element of “finality” onto that inquiry. Now, the elements of that inquiry are

spelled out by section 101(a)(48), and this Board is not free to add or detract

from those elements, and in particular to add an element that would in effect

vitiate the definition established by Congress.

On the precise question before us, Congress manifestly intended to

vacate the judicial, administrative, and regulatory rules holding a Texas

deferred adjudication not to constitute a “conviction” for purposes of the

Act. Henceforth, such a “deferred adjudication” constitutes a “conviction,”

notwithstanding the fact that the alien retains a contingent right to withdraw

his or her confession of guilt, demand a formal adjudication, and appeal

from the result of that adjudication, “This new provision . . . clarifies

Congressional intent that even in cases where adjudication is ‘deferred,’ the

original finding or confession of guilt is sufficient to establish a ‘conviction’

for purposes of the immigration laws.” H.R. Conf. Rep. 104-828, at 224

(1996) (emphasis added). The confession of guilt and imposition of penalty in this case, therefore, must be found sufficient to establish a “conviction” under the Act. Congress presumptively was aware that deferral of formal adjudication perforce results in deferral of any right of appeal from that

adjudication (should it ever take place). A conviction established for purposes of the Act notwithstanding the deferral of formal adjudication cannot

be vitiated due to the concomitant deferral of the right of appeal from that

deferred adjudication.

This case does not require us to resolve all questions that may arise in

determining whether the definitional elements of section 101(a)(48) are met

in a particular case.1 It suffices for us to determine that, here, the elements

of section 101(a)(48) have been established.

For these reasons, and those set forth by the majority, I concur in the

dismissal of respondent’s appeal.

CONCURRING and DISSENTING OPINION: Lory D. Rosenberg, Board

Member

I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

The issue in this case is whether the respondent—who pled nolo contendere to the charge of attempted murder under article 42.12, section 5(a)

of the Texas Criminal Procedure Code and is subject to a period of community supervision continuing until August 25, 2001—is deportable under

1

For example, this opinion does not address the circumstance of an alien against whom

a formal adjudication of guilt has been entered by a court, but who has pending a noncollateral post-judgment motion or direct appeal.

234

Interim Decision #3364

section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1251(a)(2)(A)(iii) (1994), as an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. As the basis for an order of deportability, the evidence must

establish that the respondent has been “convicted” of the offense that is

alleged in the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), and that his conviction is

“final.”2 Such a conviction must be “final,” not only in terms of our characterization of the trial procedures that were followed, but in terms of the

waiver or exhaustion of available appellate procedures. Accordingly, we

must determine two separate questions of fact and law—first, whether a

conviction exists, and second, whether it is a final conviction in relation to

the availability of direct appeal.

The definition of the term “conviction” contained in section

101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)A) (Supp. II 1996), goes

beyond the former federal standard, which we established in Matter of

Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546, 552 (BIA 1988), to define what constitutes a conviction, and includes a situation in which, despite a violation of probation,

a “final judgment of guilt may not be imposed until there is an additional

proceeding regarding the alien’s guilt or innocence.” Id. at n.7; see also

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

Division C of Pub. L. No 104-208, § 322(a), 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-628

(“IIRIRA”);3 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-828, at 224 (“Joint Explanatory

Statement”) (articulating “prong three” or the “third prong” of the rule in

Matter of Ozkok, supra, which was expressly overruled by section 322 of

the IIRIRA). Therefore, I concur with the majority that, although the trial

judge deferred the adjudication of guilt under the Texas statute, the respondent has been convicted according to the plain language of the Act.

However, I dissent from the majority’s reasoning and their conclusion

that the respondent is deportable, because a conviction is not “final” for purposes of incurring deportability under section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act

unless direct appeal is waived or exhausted. This rule, applicable to all state

and federal convictions, originated with the 1955 decision of the Supreme

2

The Immigration and Naturalization Service bears the burden of proving by evidence

that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing that the respondent has a final conviction for an

offense classifiable as an aggravated felony. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966) (articulating and assigning the burden of proof in deportation proceedings); 8 C.F.R. § 240.46(a)

(1997) (stating that a determination of deportability is not valid unless it is found by clear,

unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged and charged are true).

3

As this is a deportation proceeding that was initiated prior to April 1, 1997, it is governed in most respects by the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended by the

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214,

1277 (“AEDPA”). See IIRIRA § 309(c)(1), 110 Stat. at 3009-625. Nevertheless, unless otherwise precluded, the definition introduced in the IIRIRA, effective September 30,1996, is

applicable. See IIRIRA § 322(c); Matter of S-S-, 21 I&N Dec. 900, at 902 (BIA 1997).

235

Interim Decision #3364

Court in Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901 (1955) (holding that the disposition

in question lacked a sufficient degree of finality to constitute a final conviction that would support a finding of deportability), and is universally

accepted by administrative and judicial authorities as constituting a federal

standard in its own right. See Matter of Ozkok, supra, at 552, n.7, and cases

cited therein; see also Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985).

This well-established requirement was not rejected or modified by

Congress either in the plain statutory language of section 101(a)(48)(A) of

the Act or in the legislative history relating to it. See Joint Explanatory

Statement, supra, at 223-24; cf. Matter of Fuentes-Campos, 21 I&N Dec.

905 (BIA 1997) (relating to the well-established interpretation of the phrase

“is deportable”). Although the majority glosses over the essential question

of whether the respondent’s conviction is a final one in relation to the availability of direct appeal, the answer is dispositive of the appeal before us.4

As the statute under which the respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere provides that he retains the right of direct appeal throughout the

period that he must comply with the disposition entered under article 42.12,

section 5(a) of the Texas statute, the respondent’s right of direct appeal

remains in effect. See Tex. Crim. P. Code Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b)(West

1993); see also Martinez-Montoya v. INS, 904 F.2d 1018, 1025 (5th Cir.

1990) (concluding that an adjudication that is subject to direct appeal under

article 42.12, section 5 is not a “final” conviction). Therefore, despite the

fact that the respondent has been “convicted,” as now defined under section

101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, his conviction is not final. Wilson v. INS, 43 F.3d

211 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 811 (1995) (citing Pino v. Landon,

supra, and Martinez-Montoya v. INS, supra, as authority for finding that the

requirement of finality of conviction was satisfied when the respondent’s

period of appeal from a jury verdict had expired).

In the absence of a final conviction of the offense charged as the underlying basis for deportability, the record before us does not contain clear,

unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the respondent is deportable as

charged. His appeal should be sustained, not dismissed, and the charges

against him should be terminated.

I. ESSENTIAL UNDERPINNINGS: THE INDEPENDENT

FEDERAL STANDARD REQUIRING FINALITY OF

CONVICTION RELATED TO DIRECT APPEAL

The federal standard requiring that direct appeal of a conviction must

4

The concurring opinion insists, remarkably, that the respondent’s right of direct appeal

of his state adjudication has no bearing at all on our resolution of his appeal.

236

Interim Decision #3364

be waived or exhausted before it can be said that a final conviction exists

for deportation purposes has been adopted uniformly by the federal courts

and the Board as the rule in immigration cases for nearly half a century.

Wilson v. INS, supra, at 215 (citing Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc.,

460 U.S. 103 (1983), for the “general proposition that federal law governs

the application of Congressional statutes in the absence of a plain language

to the contrary”); Yazdchi v. INS, 878 F.2d 166, 167 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

493 U.S. 978 (1989); cf. Matter of L-G-, 21 I&N Dec. 89 (BIA 1995)

(regarding the federal standard for determining misdemeanor or felony

level of state offense); Matter of Manrique, 21 I&N Dec. 58 (BIA 1995)

(regarding the federal standard for finding rehabilitative first offender

statutes under state law).

It must be understood that the federal standard for what constitutes a

conviction in relation to a deferred adjudication procedure is distinct from

what renders any conviction final with regard to availability of direct

appeal. The right of direct appeal has been recognized by the Supreme

Court and is not an idiosyncratic feature of only certain state statutory

schemes, but is common to many. Evitts v. Lucey, supra, at 396 (stating that

“[i]n bringing an appeal as of right from his conviction, a criminal defendant is attempting to demonstrate that the conviction, with its consequent

drastic loss of liberty, is unlawful”); see also Goodwin v. Johnson, 132 F.3d

162, 174 (5th Cir. 1997) (indicating that “[t]he appellate process exists solely for the purpose of correcting errors that occurred at the trial court level”),

Unless waived, a right of direct appeal attaches to most convictions during

whatever period is provided by an individual statute, and in some cases, the

right may apply to judgments reached based on a defendant’s guilty plea.

See Evitts v. Lucey, supra (stating that no disposition constitutes a final conviction unless and until direct appeal has been waived or exhausted); see

also Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 578 (1990) (addressing federal

standard for definition of burglary in the context of the defendant’s appeal

following his guilty plea); United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184,

(1979) (distinguishing direct appellate review from collateral review and

favoring direct review to preserve the concept of finality).

A. Pino, Not Punu, Embodies The Supreme Court’s

Requirement ofFinality Related To Direct Appeal

In Pino v. Landon, supra, at 901, the Supreme Court declined to find

that the conviction in question “attained such finality as to support an order

of deportation.” Although the reasoning underlying the per curiam decision

of the Supreme Court is not elaborated, the decision is not devoid of context. The Court’s finding that the conviction lacked sufficient finality to

support a deportation order is informed significantly by consideration of the

decision rendered by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

237

Interim Decision #3364

in Pino v. Nicolls, 215 F.2d 237 (1st Cir. 1954), rev’d, Pino v. Landon,

supra, from which Pino sought and was granted certiorari before the

Supreme Court.

Although the First Circuit ruled against Pino, who had been convicted

of both larceny and indecent liberties with a minor,5 the court recognized

that “in the interest of a uniform application of the federal statute, the meaning of the word ‘convicted’ is a federal question,” and conceded that direct

appeal was available should Pino’s “on-file” conviction be taken from the

files, stating that

we should seek an interpretation of the word “convicted” in § 241(a)(4) as will ensure

that this legal determination has been made with reasonable certainty and finality. . . .

[as] normal routine appellate review provided by law . . . [is] part of the ordinary

processes of re-examination, the outcome of which perhaps ought to be awaited before

it can be said, with sufficient certainty and definiteness, that the state has “convicted”

the alien of crime.

Id. at 244 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, the First Circuit specifically

opined that “[t]he object, of course, is to get rid of aliens with socially

undesirable criminal traits,” although “[o]nce in a while, an innocent man

may be convicted.” Id. at 243. Considering whether the government “has to

wait forever” for such an eventuality to occur, id. at 244, the First Circuit

concluded that because “there [was] every probability that, once a case

[was] placed on file, it [would] remain in that status undisturbed and probably forgotten,” Pino had been “convicted” within the meaning of the Act,

notwithstanding Pino’s right of appeal. Id. at 245.

This was the decision that the Supreme Court reversed. Therefore, the

Supreme Court found that where a defendant retained the right of appeal—

even when almost 5 years had passed since the time the case was placed “on

file”—the conviction lacked sufficient finality to support a finding of

deportability.

B. Well-Established Distinctions Between the Terms

“Conviction” and “Final Conviction”

The Board’s 1988 decision in Matter of Ozkok, supra, at 549, underscored the importance of establishing a uniform federal standard to determine what constitutes a final conviction at the state trial level. The need for

such a federal standard was acknowledged decades ago in our decision in

5

Notably, Pino brought his challenge to the deportation order in habeas corpus proceedings. See Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U.S. 229 (1953).

238

Interim Decision #3364

Matter of O-, 7 I&N Dec. 539, 541 (BIA 1957), and in the Attorney

General’s rejection of a standard that relied on the “vagaries of state law” in

Matter of A-F-, 8 I&N Dec. 429, 446 (BIA, A.G. 1959), each of which had

been issued not long after Pino v. Landon, supra.

Therefore, in Matter of Ozkok, while recognizing that the right of direct

appeal constituted a separate indicator of finality, we imposed a new generic federal standard more encompassing than that contained in Matter of LR-, 8 I&N Dec. 269 (BIA 1959), which had looked only to the fact that a

state relied on a disposition for some state purpose to find that a conviction

existed. In an effort to avoid the “vagaries of state law,” we held that a conviction existed if a deferred adjudication under state law foreclosed further

proceedings on the original question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence

in the event the conditions of the disposition were violated. Matter of

Ozkok, supra.

1. Fifth Circuit Decisions and Longstanding

Judicial Interpretation

Contrary to the majority’s erroneous over-generalization that the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in MartinezMontoya v. INS, supra, no longer controls the outcome of this appeal, the

Fifth Circuit has been explicit and unequivocal concerning the separate

finality element of a conviction that relates to direct appeal. Specifically, the

Fifth Circuit rejected the proposition advanced by the Service’s

Legalization Appeals Unit (“LAU”), stating:

Additionally, and as a separate requirement, the conviction must be sufficiently final

to consider the alien convicted for immigration purposes. This test “has been the standard we have applied since then [1959] to determine whether a conviction exists for

immigration purposes.” Matter of Ozkok, supra. . . .

....

. . . [A]lthough the Ozkok decision drastically changed the standard for determining

whether a conviction exists at all, it nonetheless reaffirmed the continued applicability of the separate and well-established rule that an alien’s conviction also must be

final to be considered a conviction for immigration purposes.

Id. at 1021-22 (emphasis added), The Fifth Circuit concluded that “even if

the deferred adjudication of his guilty plea was considered a conviction,

Martinez-Montoya still properly cannot be considered convicted . . .

because the alleged conviction is not final.” Id. at 1025.

In Martinez-Montoya v. INS, the court traced the requirement of finality back to Pino v. Landon, supra, and recognized that the requirement of

finality of conviction, which is independent of factors that may determine

whether a deferred adjudication constitutes a conviction, specifically man239

Interim Decision #3364

dates that direct appeal must be exhausted or waived. Id. at 1025 (citing

Matter of Ozkok, supra), Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has viewed the question of finality of conviction in relation to whether direct appeal has been

waived or exhausted as extending beyond dispositions referred to as

“deferred adjudications,” and encompassing all convictions that may be

relied upon for deportation purposes. For example, in Wilson v. INS, supra,

the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant, who was found and adjudged

guilty and sentenced to probation, had a final conviction when he did not

appeal during the prescribed appeal period. Id. at 217.

The views expressed in the decisions of the Fifth Circuit discussed

above are consistent with judicial authority pertaining to finality of conviction that dates back over 40 years. In Will v. INS, 447 F.2d 529, 531 (7th Cir.

1971), the Seventh Circuit agreed that Congress intended the term “convicted” to be given meaning in light of federal law and policies, recognizing that “it appears clear from the Supreme Court’s decision in Pino and

from past administrative interpretation that the Section contemplates a conviction which has attained a substantial degree of finality.” (Citations omitted.) Relying on Pino, the court concluded “that a final curtain must have

been drawn in the criminal proceedings.” Id. at 532. Thus, the court held

that, while the likelihood of Will prevailing in his direct appeal may have

been questionable, “as long as a direct appeal is pending, it is sufficient to

negate finality of conviction for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11).” Id.

at 533 (emphasis added); see also In re Ming, 469 F.2d 1352, 1354 (7th Cir.

1972) (addressing attorney disciplinary procedures).

In Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, 516 F.2d 565, 570 & n.6 (6th Cir. 1975),

cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1050 (1976), the Sixth Circuit ruled that “[w]ithin the

federal judicial system, a person has not been ‘convicted’ of a crime under

section 241(a)(11) until a judgment of conviction has been entered and until

procedures for a direct appeal have been exhausted or waived” (citing the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 32 and 38, because “Rule 38

requires the stay of a sentence of imprisonment or probation . . .[and therefore] a sentence cannot be considered final until a direct appeal has been

decided or waived. Until then, the ‘final curtain’ has not been drawn on the

criminal proceeding.”).

Moreover, in Marino v. INS, 537 F.2d 686, 691 (2d Cir. 1976), the

Second Circuit held that a conviction must attain a “substantial degree of

finality” that does not exist unless and until direct appellate review has been

exhausted or waived. Going further than any court has to date, the Second

Circuit focused on the fact that Marino’s right of appeal had been impeded

by a presidential amnesty and extended the finality doctrine to a foreign

conviction because Marino could not appeal his conviction on account of

the amnesty. Id. at 691.

The rule that waiver or exhaustion of direct appeal is an independent

touchstone of finality has been continually endorsed and adopted in more

240

Interim Decision #3364

recent federal court decisions. In Grageda v. United States INS, 12 F.3d 919

(9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit stated expressly that “[a] criminal conviction may not be considered by an IJ until it is final” and that a conviction is

not final until an alien has “‘exhausted the direct appeals to which he is entitled.’” Id. at 921 (quoting Morales-Alvarado v. INS, 655 F.2d 172, 174 (9th

Cir. 1981)); see also Urbina-Mauricio v. INS, 989 F.2d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir.

1993) (concluding that “[a] criminal conviction is final for the purposes of

immigration review if the alien has exhausted or waived direct appellate

review”), Similarly, in White v. INS, 17 F.3d 475 (1st Cir. 1994), the First

Circuit stated that “[s]uperimposed on the BIA’s three-part test is an additional requirement: the ‘conviction’ must have attained a sufficient degree

of finality. This finality requirement is satisfied if direct appellate review of

the conviction has either been exhausted or waived.” Id. at 479 (emphasis

added) (citations omitted).

As these decisions demonstrate, the federal standard related to the existence of a “final” conviction due to the unavailability of direct appeal

extends to state dispositions that result either from guilty verdicts or from

guilty or nolo contendere pleas resulting in a deferred adjudication. These

decisions, which derive their authority from Pino, uphold the requirement

of finality and the interpretation that finality refers to the right of direct

appeal having been exhausted or waived.

2. Controlling Board Precedent

The Board and the Attorney General consistently have required that a

conviction must attain a sufficient degree of finality to support an order of

deportation. In Matter of L-R-, 7 I&N Dec. 318, 322 (BIA 1956; A.G.

1957), relying on Pino v. Landon, supra, the Attorney General reversed the

Board to hold that a conviction under the Texas Suspended Sentence Act

was lacking in finality and “therefore was insufficient to support an order of

deportation.” Similarly, in Matter of O-, supra, at 541, the Board recognized the need to ascertain whether a conviction had achieved the necessary

degree of “finality,” noting that such a determination was separate from the

fact that the state may consider the disposition a conviction for some purpose. See also Matter of Johnson, 11 I&N Dec. 401 (BIA 1965).

When the Board took steps in 1988 to better define a federal standard

under which we could assess state conviction schemes with greater uniformity, we reaffirmed the doctrine of finality of conviction with respect to the

availability of direct appeal under Pino v. Landon, supra. Although Matter

of Ozkok, supra, focused primarily on establishing a federal standard that

would provide a more effective common denominator to assess initial adjudications made at the state trial level, we noted specifically that “[i]t is well

established that a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of finality

for immigration purposes until direct appellate review of the conviction has

241

Interim Decision #3364

been exhausted or waived.” Matter of Ozkok, supra, at 552 n.7 (citing

Marino v. INS, supra; Aguilera-Enriquez v. INS, supra; Will v. INS, supra).

The principle that the availability of direct appeal is separate from the

effect of state provisions at the trial level has been recognized unanimously by the Board, despite differences affecting the interpretation of other

aspects of a “final” conviction. See, e.g., Matter of Luviano, 21 I&N Dec.

235, at 258 n.4 & n.5 (BIA 1996) (Hurwitz, dissenting, joined by Vacca)

(citing administrative and federal decisions relating to a federal standard for

determining the existence of a final conviction). This principle is upheld in

a number of Board decisions that followed Matter of Ozkok. See Matter of

Chairez, 21 I&N Dec. 44 (BIA 1995) (finding lack of right to appeal rendered conviction final); Matter of Thomas, 21 I&N Dec. 20, at 21 n.1 (BIA

1995) (reiterating that “a conviction does not attain a sufficient degree of

finality for immigration purposes until direct appellate review . . . has been

exhausted or waived” and finding that “a non-final conviction cannot support a charge of deportability, and likewise does not trigger a statutory bar

to relief, under a section of the Act premised on the existence of a ‘conviction’” (emphasis added)); Matter of Polanco, 20 I&N Dec. 894, 896 (BIA

1994) (acknowledging direct appeal as precluding finality, but holding that

unless accepted for review, “the potential for discretionary review on direct

appeal” nunc pro tunc, does not preclude a determination of finality);

Matter of Adetiba, 20 I&N Dec. 506, 508 (BIA 1992) (finding finality of

conviction based on evidence that the respondent’s appeal was denied).

As these decisions demonstrate, the “sufficient finality” requirement of

Pino, which forms the basis for the rule that a conviction is not final for

deportation purposes unless direct appeal is waived or exhausted, has long

been understood and accepted by the Board as a separate test, distinct from

whether a state scheme affords a defendant access to further proceedings to

determine guilt or innocence in the first instance. The benefit of this rule is

available to a defendant who is subject to a deferred adjudication, such as

the respondent, just as it is available to any defendant considered convicted

as the result of a guilty plea or verdict following trial.

II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION: THE DEFINITION OF

A CONVICTIONUNDER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE AND

PERMISSIBLE INTERPRETATION DOCTRINES

Section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act specifies the elements of a criminal

procedure that constitute a “conviction,” codifying the definition for the

first time in the history of the Act. While the statutory language makes it

clear that a formal judgment of guilt, or, in the alternative, a verdict or plea

followed by the imposition of some punishment or restraint on liberty, con242

Interim Decision #3364

stitutes a conviction, the majority’s assertion that “Congress has abolished

the requirement that an adjudication be ‘final’ and eliminated the third

prong of the Matter of Ozkok definition of a conviction,” Matter of Punu,

22 I&N Dec. 224, at 226 (BIA 1998) (emphasis added), is erroneous. It conflates the requirement of finality of conviction related to direct appeal as

though it were an element of a conviction tied exclusively to our former

interpretation of certain state deferred adjudications under “prong three” of

Matter of Ozkok, supra.

Plainly, although section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act “eliminated the third

prong,” it has not “abolished the requirement that an adjudication be

‘final.’” As the statute is silent beyond defining what constitutes a conviction with regard to later determinations of guilt or innocence when judgment is deferred, it is inaccurate and incorrect to conclude that it addresses

the status of the respondent’s conviction with regard to the fact that he not

only retains the right to trial, but retains the right to direct appeal. See Tex.

Crim. P. Code Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b). It is therefore unreasonable to conclude that “[b]ased upon our conclusion that Congress expressly modified

the test delineated in Matter of Ozkok, we find that Martinez-Montoya v.

INS no longer controls the issue before us.” Matter of Punu, supra, at 229

(citation omitted). Such a conclusion violates the longstanding rule pertaining to the availability of direct appeal, acknowledged unequivocally as

being controlling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

in Wilson v. INS, supra, and Martinez-Montoya v. INS, supra, and constitutes an impermissible construction of the statute.

A. Chevron Analysis of Section 101(a)(48)(A) and Applicable

Principles of Statutory Construction

Our construction of the existing statutory language and the absence of

any language specifically addressing either finality of conviction or direct

appellate review of a conviction, is governed by the Supreme Court’s

decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,

Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984). As our purpose in interpreting the

statute is to give meaning to Congress’ intent in enacting it, we must identify the precise question addressed by Congress, and either give effect to

the language of the statute if it is plain, or provide a permissible construction of it if it is not.

As the majority recognizes, in assessing the plain language of the

statute under the Chevron test, we must consider it in the context of the

statute as a whole. INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 431 (1987); INS

v. Phinpathya, 464 U.S. 183, 189 (1984); see also Matter of FuentesCampos, 21 I&N Dec. 905 (BIA 1997). Therefore, principles of statutory

construction should guide us in interpreting the plain language regarding

“conviction,” as well as in providing a reasonable interpretation of the

243

Interim Decision #3364

statute in the event it is ambiguous.

The precise question addressed by Congress in adding section

101(a)(48)(A) to the Act, relevant to the case before us, is the effect of a

deferred adjudication in which a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere

is entered and/or a guilty finding is made, and punishment or some other

restriction on the defendant’s liberty is imposed. The language of the statute

regarding what constitutes a conviction is plain with respect to a change in

the definition of a conviction. However, the statute does not define what

constitutes a final conviction for purposes of establishing deportability, and

if “Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue,” it is

for the agency—here the Board—to construe the issue and for a reviewing

court to determine whether such a construction “is based on a permissible

construction of the statute.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, Inc., supra, at 843; see also Hamdan v. INS, 98 F.3d 183,

185 (5th Cir. 1996) (describing the second part of its two-prong standard of

review, articulated in Animashaun v. INS, 990 F.2d 234, 237 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 510 U.S. 995 (1993), as applying the standard that an agency interpretation must be reasonable to be upheld).

In adding section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, Congress did not include

any language referring to direct appellate review as an element of finality

of conviction. Given the fact that it made such a significant change in eliminating “prong three,” it is notable that Congress did not specifically address

Pino v. Landon, supra, which has been understood by the federal courts of

appeals, as well as by the Board and by the Attorney General, to require that

direct appeal must be exhausted or waived. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group,

Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992).

1. Intent Indicated in Legislative History

The legislative history is silent regarding Congress having had any

intent to eliminate either the rule of Pino v. Landon applicable to direct

appeal, or the standard of finality of conviction requiring waiver or exhaustion of direct appellate review. Moreover, Congress did not alter the finality requirement in the AEDPA, which was enacted only 6 months before the

IIRIRA focused specifically on terrorists and criminal aliens, and it did not

address finality related to direct appeal in any legislative history associated

with the AEDPA. As the Supreme Court stated in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,

supra, when “the plain language of this statute appears to settle the question

before us . . . we look to the legislative history to determine only whether

there is ‘clearly expressed legislative intention’ contrary to that language,

which would require us to question the strong presumption that Congress

expresses its intent through the language it chooses. In this case, far from

causing us to question the conclusion that flows from the statutory language, the legislative history adds compelling support to our holding . . . .”

244

Interim Decision #3364

Id. at 433 (citations omitted).

Although silent as to the effect of direct appeal, the legislative history

is clear. Congress’ elimination of “prong three” of the Ozkok decision in

favor of a new federal standard was intended to overcome the “myriad of

provisions” that allowed “aliens who have clearly been guilty of criminal

behavior . . . to . . . escape the immigration consequences.” Joint

Explanatory Statement, supra, at 224 (emphasis added), The requirement

that a conviction must be final, in terms of direct appeal, does not conflict

with the intent of Congress as elaborated in the legislative history accompanying section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, and actually can be said to further it. In Evitts v. Lucey, supra, at 399-400, the Supreme Court found that

a system of appeal as of right, although not mandated by the constitution,

“is established precisely to assure that only those who are validly convicted

have their freedom drastically curtailed.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the

requirement of finality of conviction related to direct appeal ensures that

only those respondents whose convictions are legitimate indications of their

guilt of a deportable criminal offense are subject to deportation consequences.

Furthermore, despite expressly intending to avoid the “myriad of provisions” in different state statutes, the legislative history does not—and cannot, as a practical matter—foreclose reference to state criminal procedures

for purposes of determining the applicability of the new federal standard. In

other words, the most encompassing federal standard for what constitutes a

conviction is still dependent upon the elements of the state statute. See, e.g.,

Cabral v. INS, 15 F.3d 193, 196 n.5 (1st Cir. 1994) (stating that we look to

state law only to determine the elements of the offense of conviction (citing

Matter of H-, 7 I&N Dec. 359, 360 (BIA 1956))).

For example, under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act, if a formal judgment of guilt does not exist, the state disposition in question must, as a

matter of fact, include a finding of guilt or a plea of guilty, nolo contendere,

or admission to sufficient facts to warrant a finding of guilt. Similarly, the

court must, as a matter of fact, impose some form of punishment or restraint

on liberty. Clearly, it is conceivable that a state statute could exist under

which no formal judgment or finding, plea, or admission of guilt is made,

but in which prosecution is deferred subject to a defendant’s satisfactory

completion of some supervised program. Although more difficult to imagine, it also is possible that a finding or admission might be made without the

imposition of any restraint on the defendant’s liberty.

Likewise, when we determine whether an offense, as defined by a state

statute, constitutes a ground of deportability under a particular provision of

the Act, we are not relying on the state’s definition of the type of crime covered as a matter of state law, but are relying on the elements of the offense,

as a matter of fact, to determine whether the Act is violated by a conviction

of the crime as defined. See, e.g., Matter of Teixiera, 21 I&N Dec. 316 (BIA

245

Interim Decision #3364

1996); see also Matter of L-G-, supra; United States v. Taylor, supra. We

are not, in such cases, accepting or applying the state’s construction of what

constitutes a conviction, an aggravated felony, or a firearms offense, as a

matter of law, but relying on the facts—or elements of the state statute—to

determine whether the offense fits within the federal definition of a violation that incurs immigration consequences. In the same way, in applying the

federal standard that the right of direct appeal must be waived or exhausted, we must rely on the provisions of state law—not to determine the standard we apply for our legal conclusion, but to determine whether a conviction is final according to that standard.

2. Intent Found in Acquiescence to Controlling Interpretations

As the plain statutory language that has been enacted does not compel

a different reading, it is proper to infer that Congress did not change the

requirement that a conviction must be final in relation to direct appeal having been exhausted or waived to support an order of deportability. See

Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580 (1978) (stating that “Congress is presumed to be aware of an administrative or judicial interpretation of a statute

and to adopt that interpretation when it re-enacts a statute without change .

. . .” (citing Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 414 n.8 (1975);

NLRB v. Gullett Gin Co., 340 U.S. 361, 366 (1951); National Lead Co. v.

United States, 252 U.S. 140, 147 (1920); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland Statutory

Construction § 49.09 and cases cited (4th ed. 1973))).

In Lorillard v. Pons, supra, at 581, the Supreme Court recognized that

“where, as here, Congress adopts a new law incorporating sections of a

prior law, Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of

the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects

the new statute.” (Emphasis added). Congress not only is deemed to be

aware of prior interpretations of a statute, but of preexisting case law, when

it acts. Scheidemann v. INS, 83 F.3d 1517, 1526 (3d Cir. 1996). In Lorillard

v. Pons, supra, the Court stated that such a presumption was proper when

Congress exhibited both a detailed knowledge of the FLSA provisions and their judicial interpretation and a willingness to depart from those provisions regarded as undesirable or inappropriate for incorporation . . . . This selectivity . . . strongly suggests

that but for those changes Congress expressly made, it intended to incorporate fully

the remedies and procedures of the FLSA.

Id. at 581-82 (emphasis added).

In enacting a statutory definition of a “conviction,” Congress demonstrated a detailed knowledge of the judicial and administrative interpretation of both a conviction and a final conviction with regard to direct appeal.

As in Lorillard, Congress was selective in eliminating one particular ele246

Interim Decision #3364

ment of our prior definition of a conviction that did “not go far enough . . .

to establish a ‘conviction’ for purposes of the immigration laws.” Joint

Explanatory Statement, supra, at 224. By contrast, Congress did not abolish the requirement that an adjudication constituting a conviction must be

final. Such a requirement is imposed pursuant to Pino v. Landon, supra, and

its progeny, including Board decisions that are not controlled by “prong

three” of Matter of Ozkok, supra.

Congress’ detailed knowledge of the law and its selectivity suggests

that “but for those changes Congress expressly made,” it intended to maintain the existing interpretations. Lorillard v. Pons, supra, at 582; see also

Chemical Mfrs. Ass’n v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 470 U.S.

116, 127 (1985) (stating that “[a]nother indication that Congress did not

intend to forbid [certain waivers and modifications] is its silence on the

issue”), In Chemical Manufacturers Ass’n. v. Natural Resources Defense

Council, Inc., supra, at 127-28, the Court noted that, if the Conference

Committee meant to “boldly . . . eliminate FDF variances,” as the NRDC

claimed, “it is odd that the Committee did not communicate it,” since it was

well aware of judicial decisions that ruled to the contrary. Similarly, as

Congress specifically examined and expressly overruled those Board precedents with which it disagreed,6 and failed to mention either the specific

aspect of Matter of Ozkok, supra, pertaining to direct appeal, or any other

Board decisions such as Matter of Polanco, supra, Matter of Chairez,

supra, or Matter of Thomas, supra, which address finality of conviction in

relation to the availability of direct appeal, I do not see how we can simply

overlook or ignore Congress’ silence.

Sound principles of statutory construction also provide that Congress

will not be deemed to overrule controlling federal case law sub silentio, or

by implication. See, e.g., Monessen Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 486

U.S. 330, 337-38 (1988) (recognizing that Congress’ failure to disturb a

consistent judicial interpretation of the statute may provide some indication

that Congress “‘at least acquiesces in, and apparently affirms’” the interpretation (quoting Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 703

(1979))). When Congress intended to overrule the holding of the Supreme

Court in INS v. Phinpathya, supra, which had read the statutory requirement

of a period of continuous physical presence literally, without regard to

6

The Joint Explanatory Statement, supra, expressly indicates the particular administrative decisions and the specific aspects of those decisions that

it found objectionable and wished to overturn. See, e.g., Matter of Ozkok,

supra; Matter of Castro, 19 I&N Dec. 692 (BIA 1988) (relating to imposition and execution of sentence); Matter of Esposito, 21 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA

1995) (same).

247

Interim Decision #3364

whether a departure was “brief, casual, or innocent,” it did so by an explicit statement in the legislative history. Compare former section 244(b)(2) of

the Act, added by Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Pub. L.

No. 99-603, § 315(b), 100 Stat. 3359, 3439-40, in which Congress expressly indicated its intent to overrule the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in INS

v. Phinpathya, supra.

Similarly, in Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), the Court

addressed 8 U.S.C. § 1481(c), enacted by Congress following the Court’s

decision in Mitsugi Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129, 138 (1958), and

found that its prior holding had been expressly overruled. Concluding that

Congress’ “evident aim was to supplant the evidentiary standards prescribed by Nishikawa,” Vance v. Terrazas, supra, at 264, the Court acknowledged that “[t]he House Report accompanying § 1481(c), H.R. Rep. No.

1086, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 40 (1961), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News,

p. 2950, [which quoted with approval from Mr. Justice Harlan’s dissenting

opinion in Nishikawa,] took direct aim at Nishikawa’s holding.” Id. at 265

n.8.

Congress never has expressed specifically any interest to obviate direct

appeal or to overrule Pino v. Landon. Consequently, the “inference” that

evidence of the waiver or exhaustion of direct appeal remains an essential

element of deportability based on a criminal conviction, “is buttressed by an

examination of the language Congress chose to describe” a conviction.

Lorillard v. Pons, supra, at 583 (“‘[W]here words are employed in a statute

which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law

of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the

context compels to the contrary.’” (quoting Standard Oil v. United States,

221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911))); see also Gilbert v. United States, 370 U.S. 650,

655 (1962); Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152 (1883). Under these

circumstances, Pino v. Landon, which is understood to be at the root of the

finality of conviction requirement with respect to the availability of direct

appeal, must be found to control the resolution of this appeal. See

Martinez-Montoya v. INS, supra.

3. Intent Based on Statutory Silence Regarding Direct Appeal

The plain language before us is limited to defining what constitutes a

conviction and does not define what constitutes a final conviction for purposes of establishing deportability. We may extrapolate from Matter of

Fuentes-Campos, supra, at 907 (BIA 1997), that “the plain language of the

amendment . . . [as] construed within the context of the well-established . .

. distinctions [between a conviction and a final conviction],” supports the

reasonable conclusion that section 101(a)(48)(A) “applies only” to the definition of what constitutes a conviction at the trial level. This reading is con248

Interim Decision #3364

sistent with the principle that use of one term in a particular section of the

statute, without reference to another term that is commonly accepted as

having a different meaning, supports interpreting the section as being limited to its express terms. See Matter of Fuentes-Campos, supra, at 906-08

(interpreting Congress’ failure to use language to expressly bar an alien who

“is excludable” from eligibility for a section 212(c) waiver to indicate that

access to such a waiver remains available to such an individual). Such

silence militates in favor of our not disturbing the well-established and

longstanding interpretation of finality of conviction as being contingent on

exhaustion of direct appeal.

What is more, Congress is not unable to specify, using plain language,

that direct appeal has no effect on a “conviction” when it wishes to do so.

See Travers v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 1994). For example, when

enacting the Medicare and Medicaid Patient and Program Protection Act in

1987, Congress broadened the definition of “conviction” to encompass not

only the entry of judgment, but also the participation in “a first offender,

deferred adjudication, or other program where judgment of conviction has

been withheld.” H.R. Rep. No. 99-727, at 75 (1986), reprinted in 1986

U.S.C.C.A.N. 3607, 3665. At the same time, Congress there defined the

term “conviction” in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(i)(1) (1994) as “a judgment of

conviction [that] has been entered against [an] individual or entity by a

Federal, State, or local court, regardless of whether there is an appeal pending or whether the judgment of conviction or other record relating to criminal conduct has been expunged.”

Silence cannot result in such a drastic change in interpretation of the

immigration law as would occur were the position of the majority to be

accepted. American Hospital Ass’n. v. NLRB, 499 U.S. 606 (1991). Perhaps

equally as important as the Fifth Circuit’s recognition of the independent

requirement that a conviction must be final to support an order of deportation is the circuit’s demand for “[evidence to indicate] greater clarity of purpose when a statute would be read to upset a status quo long in place.”

United States v. Quaye, 57 F.3d 447, 450 (5th Cir. 1995). Adopting the view

of the petitioner and the Solicitor General, the Fifth Circuit reversed the

deportation order of the district court, holding that nothing in 18 U.S.C. §

3583 indicated that it was Congress’ intent to “undermine [the] executive

prerogative sub silentio” or to “deprive aliens deported at sentencing of

such relief . . . which the Attorney General may grant.” Id.

The Supreme Court looks askance on interpretations of congressional

silence that would result in fundamental changes contrary to well-established principles such as the significance of the availability of direct appeal.

In Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 380, 396 n.23 (1992), the Court majority

noted that “silence in this regard can be likened to the dog that did not bark.

See A. Doyle, Silver Blaze, in The Complete Sherlock Holmes 335 (1927).”

The Court quoted Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in Harrison v. PPG

249

Interim Decision #3364

Industries, Inc., 446 U.S. 578, 602 (1980) (Rehnquist C.J., dissenting), in

which he stated that “[i]n a case where the construction of legislative language such as this makes so sweeping and so relatively unorthodox a

change as that made here, I think judges as well as detectives may take into

consideration the fact that a watchdog did not bark in the night.” See also

American Hospital Ass’n. v. NLRB, supra, at 613-14 (stating that “[i]f this

amendment had been intended to place the important limitation on the

scope of the Board’s rulemaking powers that petitioner suggests, we would

expect to find some expression of that intent in the legislative history. Cf.

Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., supra.

4. Permissible Construction That Gives Meaning to the Statute

The plain language of section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act is not devoid of

meaning when read simply to define what constitutes a conviction without

disturbing the concept of finality of conviction. Nor is an interpretation of

the arguable ambiguity created by Congress’ silence reasonably read as

eliminating the requirement that direct appeal must be exhausted or waived

before a conviction is sufficiently final to sustain a finding of deportability.

Not all guilty or nolo pleas mean that the respondent is guilty or mean

that a guilty defendant will “escape[]” deportation. Evitts v. Lucey, supra;

Will v. INS, supra; see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755 n.14

(1970) (citing Alford v. North Carolina, 405 F.2d 340 (4th Cir. 1968)). First,

some convictions do not incur deportability at all. Second, the presence of

a conviction has meaning independent of its status as a final conviction

related to determining deportability, as the existence of a conviction—even

if not final—may be a factor affecting eligibility for discretionary relief

from deportation on other grounds. See Matter of Thomas, supra.

Third, lest it be thought that a deferred adjudication is akin to a guilty

plea, and that direct appeal is limited to convictions following judge or jury

trials, it must be noted that some guilty pleas are appealed. For example, in

United States v. Taylor, supra, in which the Supreme Court addressed the

need for a federal standard that defined burglary for purposes of assessing

convictions under state statutes, the respondent had entered into a plea

agreement in which he pled guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the

resulting conviction. United States v. Taylor was decided in the context of

that appeal, which notably did not address any claimed constitutional or

procedural infirmities related to the plea, but focused on whether the defendant could be considered convicted of burglary as a substantive matter,

despite his plea.

Moreover, appeals from deferred adjudications at the state trial level do

remain available in some instances, even where further trial proceedings on

guilt or innocence are not provided. For example, in the District of

Columbia Court of Appeals, a defendant who was found guilty and received

250

Interim Decision #3364

180 days’ probation under a deferred scheme nevertheless retained his right

to appeal that disposition. Mozingo v. United States, 503 A.2d 1238 (D.C.

1986) (determining that this probationary scheme resulted in a conviction

subject to appeal). Thus, contrary to the suggestion of the concurring Board

Member that direct appeal is of no consequence because it is linked to and

dependent on the adjudication of the respondent’s guilt or innocence in the

first instance, the right of direct appeal is not always dependent on the presence of further proceedings.

Furthermore, just as section 101(A)(48)(A) does not supersede the rule

that direct appeal must be exhausted or waived, neither does that section

limit the time period in which we honor direct appeals that remain available.

These periods vary from state to state, and between state and federal

statutes, often depending on the section of the statute in which the offense

is addressed. For example, in New York a defendant must appeal a criminal

prosecution within 30 days of the decision, or the mailing of a written decision. See N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 460.10(1)(a) (McKiney 1997). And,

Connecticut requires that a defendant take a direct appeal from a criminal

prosecution within 2 weeks. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-95(b) (West 1997),

A Notice of Appeal from a federal conviction must be filed within 10 days

after the entry of a judgment. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(b); see also Taylor

v. United States, supra.

In the respondent’s case may become deportable as charged sometime

in the future, either when he exercises and exhausts his right of appeal, or

when his period of community supervision ends and his right of appeal

expires. However, the fact that he may become deportable in the future does

not mean that he is deportable now. See Matter of Ramirez-Somera, 20 I&N

Dec. 564, 566 (BIA 1992) (noting that the statutory provision precluding

eligibility for a section 212(c) waiver is triggered when 5 years’ imprisonment has been served and the determination when to institute proceedings

is within the sole discretion of the Service).

I cannot agree that the majority provides a permissible interpretation of

section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act. See Ronald M. Levin, The Anatomy of

Chevron: Step Two Reconsidered, Symposium on Administrative Law, 72

Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 1253, 1263 (1997) (asserting that in light of the fact that

the Court referred in other passages of Chevron to “reasonableness,” it has

been said that an interpretation that is “permissible” might be one that,

under the “hard-look” doctrine applicable to review of agency decisions,

would not be arbitrary and capricious). The majority, without any authority

to do so, has equated two distinct concepts. See id. at 1263 n.41 (citing

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29,

43, 57 (1983), for the proposition that the agency must generate a “reasoned

analysis” and “articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action”); id. at

1265 n.53 (citing Whiteliff Inc. v. Shalala, 20 F.3d 488, 492 (D.C. Cir.

1994), which rejected the “Secretary’s indiscriminate equation of [two con251

Interim Decision #3364

cepts]” as being “simply illogical,” without any support, and therefore an

unreasonable interpretation of the statute).

The majority’s interpretation, which requires us to abandon the longstanding, independent rule that appeal must be waived or exhausted before

a conviction becomes final, differs markedly from the situation in Rust v.

Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), where the Supreme Court rejected the argument that an agency’s interpretation ‘is not entitled to deference because it

represents a sharp break with prior interpretations’ of the statute in question,” id. at 186 (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources

Defense Council, supra, at 862), and ruled that “[w]e find that the Secretary

amply justified his change of interpretation with a ‘reasoned analysis,’” id.

at 187 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins.

Co., supra, at 42). No similar factors, such as the original intent of the

statute, the agency’s practical experience, or legislative history, which were

present in Rust v. Sullivan, supra, exist here. Cf. Rust v. Sullivan, supra, at

186. Instead, the majority’s interpretation not only lacks any comprehensive

reasoning, but far exceeds the plain language of the statute.

In defining what constitutes a conviction, Congress did not differentiate between persons found guilty and for whom a judgment of conviction

exists, and persons who pled guilty or nolo contendere at the trial level. A

“conviction” is deemed to exist in either case. To interpret the present language as authorizing removal when direct appeal as of right still remains

pending (or before it is foreclosed by statute) in a case in which the state

has deferred adjudication, results in our treating two similarly situated

groups of noncitizens unequally without reason. See Royster Guano Co. v.

Commonwealth of Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920),

As I do not believe that the majority is prepared to go so far as to claim

that the statute allows removal in cases in which a respondent has an appeal

pending or retains the right of direct appeal from a judgment based on a

finding of guilt, such a reading unnecessarily places the constitutionality of

the statute in question. Cf. United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194, 202

(1957) (rejecting an interpretation of a statute affecting the liberty interests

of aliens that would raise doubts as to the statute’s validity, based on the

“‘cardinal principle’” favoring adoption of a construction of the statute “‘by

which the [constitutional] question may be avoided’” (quoting Crowell v.

Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932))).

The courts have recognized that “[d]rastic consequences to the alien

may result from a determination that he has been ‘convicted’ of a crime

within the meaning of the Act.” Marino v. INS, supra, at 691 (citing

Delgadillo v. Carmichael, 332 U.S. 388, 391 (1947); Costello v. INS, 376

U.S. 120, 128 (1964)), As Chief Judge Kaufman stated in Lennon v. INS,

527 F.2d 187, 193 (2d Cir. 1975), “It is settled doctrine that deportation

statutes must be construed in favor of the alien . . . [because Congress would

not] trench on his freedom beyond that which is required by the narrowest

252

Interim Decision #3364

of several possible meanings of the words used.” Should there be any doubt

concerning the meaning of section 101(a)(48)(A), the rule of lenity requires

that any ambiguity must be construed in favor of the alien. See Matter of NJ-B-, 21 I&N Dec. 812 (BIA 1997) (Rosenberg, dissenting).

B. Pino, Not Punu, Controls Whether a Conviction Is

Final and Incurs Deportability

The federal standard of Pino v. Landon and its progeny mandates that

we adhere to the doctrine of finality of conviction, which requires direct

appeal must be waived or exhausted before a conviction will support an

order of deportation. In the respondent’s case, appeal has neither been

waived nor exhausted. According to Texas law, direct appeal remains

available to the respondent. Article 42.12, § 3d(b) specifically provides:

“After an adjudication of guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of

punishment, pronouncement of sentence, granting of probation, and

defendant’s appeal continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been

deferred.”

In Martinez-Montoya v. INS, supra, the Fifth Circuit stated unequivocally that “the defendant retains all rights to direct appeal from the original

plea proceedings in the event the state later proceeds to adjudication.” Id.

at 1026 (citing David v. State, 704 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex. Crim. App.

1985)(en banc) (rejecting the court of appeals’ finding that appellant

“‘waived any alleged defects in the original adjudication proceedings by

failing to move for an adjudication of guilt within thirty days’”)).

Furthermore, in McDougal v. State, 610 S.W.2d 509, 509-10 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1981), the Court of Criminal Appeals made clear that an order deferring adjudication pursuant to article 42.12, § 3d(a) simply is not appealable

until there has been an adjudication of guilt. As the concurring judge stated, “I believe the matter is not any different, for appeal purposes, from that

where the defendant has appeared in court, plead guilty or nolo contendere

to a felony offense, and awaits the assessment of his punishment.” Id. at

511 (Teague, J., concurring).

Despite the majority’s reference to the “possibility” of appeal in dismissing the respondent’s contention that his conviction is not final, the fact

that the respondent’s conviction may be appealed should the state court take

further action does not transform the character of the direct appeal available

in his case from an appeal as of right to an appeal that is discretionary.

Moreover, the fact that the court could take further action over an extended

period of time that the respondent remains subject to community supervision has no bearing on his right of appeal. Cf. Pino v. Nicolls, supra, at 24445, overruled by Pino v. Landon, supra (making no distinction between this

type of direct appeal and an appeal that had to be taken within a time certain). Similarly, in Marino v. INS, supra, the court refused to find the con253

Interim Decision #3364

viction final, despite the fact that the defendant’s right of appeal never could

be exercised.

The respondent’s situation, in relation to his right of direct appeal, is

hardly different from that of a defendant who has been arrested and charged

with a crime but awaits a judgment, which, if adverse, he can appeal. It is

the same as that of a defendant who received a judgment of conviction

based on a jury verdict and whose appeal period has not expired. And, it is

the same as that of a defendant who pled guilty and retains the right of

appeal in a plea agreement. In all cases, where appeal is provided by statute

or on another legal basis, neither an arrest, a plea, a judicial finding, or a

judgment of guilt that remains subject to direct appeal constitutes a final

conviction unless and until direct appeal has been waived or exhausted.

Evitts v. Lucey, supra (acknowledging that although appeal is not constitutionally required, once the right is established, it must be honored and

enforced).

In determining whether the respondent is deportable, we must afford

him a proceeding that comports with the notions of fundamental fairness

and due process. Former section 242(b)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §

1252(b)(4)(1994), which is applicable to the respondent’s case, states, in

particular, that no decision on deportability shall be valid unless supported

by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence. See also sections

240(b), (c)(3)(A) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b), (c)(3)(A)(Supp. II

1996). Furthermore, the regulations place the burden of proving deportability by evidence that is clear, unequivocal, and convincing on the Service. 8

C.F.R. § 240.46(a) (1998).

It is premature to find the respondent deportable based on his “conviction.” The Texas statute provides a specific, time-limited period of appeal

for a defendant whose conviction is handled under article 42.12, just as it

provides a specific appeal period for a defendant whose case is heard and

decided at trial by a jury, or by a judge. There has been no waiver of the

appeal period that exists in the respondent’s case. The respondent’s period

of community supervision has not concluded, and according to the terms of

the Texas statute, until that time he retains the right of direct appeal. Once

that period ends, his right of direct appeal under the Texas statute will have

expired. Until then, he is not deportable. See Matter of Ramirez-Somera,

supra.

It is our function to review the decision made by the Immigration

Judge. 8 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(b)(2), 3.38(a)(1998). And it is our responsibility to

do whatever is proper and necessary to resolve the appeal. 8 C.F.R. §

3.1(d)(1)(1998), When an error by an Immigration Judge wrongly sustains

a charge of deportability on less than clear, unequivocal, and convincing

evidence, prejudice is apparent and the proceedings should be terminated.

III. CONCLUSION

254

Interim Decision #3364

Although steeped in legal history and principles of statutory construction, the reasoning underlying my position that the respondent cannot be

found deportable is simple and straightforward. As a matter of law, the

requirement of finality of conviction according to the longstanding and

unchanged federal standard applies to all convictions, including this one. As

a matter of fact, the Texas statute under which we find the respondent has

been “convicted” under section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act is explicit: a

defendant maintains his right of direct appeal from such an adjudication

under this dispositional scheme while he is subject to community supervision. Thus, there is no evidence that the respondent‘s “conviction” is final—

and can support an order of deportability—because he retains the right to

appeal his conviction during the period that he is expected to satisfy the

conditions imposed on his liberty.

The majority’s reading of section 101(a)(48)(A) of the Act is both

impermissible and unreasonable, as it blurs the separate tests for determining what constitutes a conviction—now defined by statute—and when a

conviction attains a sufficient degree of finality to form a basis for deportation, as articulated in Pino v. Landon, supra, and its progeny with regard to

the availability of direct appeal. To interpret the statute as obviating a finality requirement, without an express statement from Congress, throws the

amended statute into direct conflict with the Supreme Court and the federal courts that have spoken to this question. I do not believe that the plain

language of the statute—or a reasonable interpretation of Congress’ silence

with regard to finality—supports either such a reading or a finding of

deportability in this case.

Consequently, I dissent. The respondent’s appeal should be sustained

on the basis that the record lacks sufficient evidence to establish that his

conviction is final or that he is deportable as charged.

255