LEONARD ALFRED BROWNRIGG, APPELLANT,
v.
THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A conviction, even if expunged under California Penal Code § 1203.4, is still valid for deportation purposes under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Appellant was convicted of illicit marijuana possession and sought to avoid deportation by claiming his conviction was expunged under California law. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Precedent (Stare Decisis) cases and more on FLexlaw
BARNES, Circuit Judge:
This is a petition for review of an order of deportation. We have jurisdiction. (8 U.S.C. § 1105a.) Appellant was convicted of illicit possession of marijuana, violating § 11530, Health and Safety Code of the State of California. Appellant denied that a conviction existed because of subsequent so-called “ex-pungement” proceedings — California Penal Code, § 1203.4.
We have already held that section does not wipe out the conviction or “expunge” it for the purposes of § 241(a) (11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 344 F. 2d 804 (9th Cir. 1964), cert. den. 382 U.S. 840, 86 S.Ct. 88, 15 L.Ed.2d 81; Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 349 F. 2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 932, 86 S.Ct. 326, 15 L.Ed.2d 344. We follow said cases.
There was no error in admitting evidence of appellant’s conviction despite “expungement;” no matter how illogicál appellant thinks it may be. Congress was legislating with reference to an existing statute (§ 11530, Calif. Health & Safety Code), and not with respect to that state statute as it is partially modified by Penal Code § 1203.4. See discussion by Judge Duniway in Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra.
Judge Ely retains the view which he, dissenting, expressed in Kelly v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, supra, but he has authorized the statement that he, yielding to controlling precedent, concurs in this opinion.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maximilliano de la Cruz-Martinez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 404 F.2d 1198 (9th Cir. 1968)
-
Leonel Ocon-Perez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 550 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Ioannis Chlomos v. U. S. Dep't of Just., 516 F.2d 310 (3d Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Sill Corp. v. United States, 382 U.S. 840 (U.S. 1965)
- Garcia-Gonzales v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 382 U.S. 840 (U.S. 1965)
- Kelly v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1965)
- Burton v. United States, 382 U.S. 932 (U.S. 1965)
- Stephens v. United States, 382 U.S. 932 (U.S. 1965)