Brice v. Pickett, 74-1046
| Decision Date | 01 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1046,74-1046 |
| Citation | 515 F.2d 153 |
| Parties | Waldorf Brainard BRICE, Appellant, v. Glenn PICKETT et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before BARNES, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying appellant's petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Brice is being detained by the immigration authorities pursuant to an order of deportation following a hearing in which he was found deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11), which provides, in part, that an alien may be deported who "at any time has been convicted of a violation of . . . any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of . . . marijuana."
At his deportation hearing, Brice admitted both that he is an alien and that he had been convicted in Japan on September 1, 1969, upon a plea of guilty, to the unlawful possession of marijuana. The district court found the evidence supporting the finding of deportability to be clear, convincing and unequivocal. Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966). We affirm.
Brice argues that Congress did not intend 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) to apply to foreign convictions. The wording of that statute however strongly indicates that Congress did intend to include foreign convictions. A plain reading of "any law or regulation" would include foreign laws or regulations. Administrative decisions and a per curiam opinion from the Second Circuit have interpreted the statute as if Congress did so intend foreign convictions to be included. Gardos v. I&NS, 324 F.2d 179 (2d Cir. 1963); Matter of Romadia-Herros, 11 I&N Dec. 772 (1966); Matter of Gardos, 10 I&N Dec. 261 (1963); and see Gordon and Rosenfeld, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 4.12d, p. 169 (1973 Supp.). We reach the same conclusion, and hold that 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(11) is applicable to foreign convictions relating to narcotics or marijuana violations.
Brice's argument that deportation based on a foreign conviction for possession of marijuana is unconstitutional is meritless. Congress has plenary power over the admission and expulsion of aliens. An alien resident in the United States may be deported for any reason which makes his residence here not in the best interest of the government, as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contreras v. Schiltgen
...challenge his prior conviction at sentencing. See Custis, 511 U.S. at 493-96, 114 S.Ct. at 1737-38; see also Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir.1975) (holding that due process does not require that an alien being deported for a foreign conviction be permitted to challenge the conv......
-
Matter of McNaughton
...guilt has been adjudicated by the courts in Canada with criminal jurisdiction. It is not our place to retry that issue. Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153 (9 Cir.1975); Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860 (2 Cir.1914); Matter of Fortis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 576 (BIA 1974); Matter of Sirhan, 13 I. & N. Dec. 59......
-
Matter of Linnas
...laws there is no requirement that a foreign conviction must conform to our constitutional guarantees. See, e.g., Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1975); Matter of Awadh, 15 I&N Dec. 775, 777 (BIA 1976). Thus, due process is not violated by the respondent's deportation to the We......
-
Lui-Dix v. Holder
...that Congress has called for in the immigration statutes. See Pasquini v. INS, 557 F.2d 536, 539 (5th Cir. 1977); Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1975); cf. Society of Lloyd's v. Ashenden, 233 F.3d 473, 476-77 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing differences between the procedures in t......
-
THE PROBLEM OF FOREIGN CONVICTIONS IN U.S. IMMIGRATION LAW.
...judgment is predicated on laws repugnant to the domestic forum's conception of decency and justice."). (50) See, e.g., Brice v. Pickett, 515 F.2d 153, 154 (9th Cir. 1975) (finding "no requirement that a foreign court's proceedings or conviction must conform to United States constitutional s......