Matter of Abreu-Semino

• Court: U.S. DOJ Board of Immigration Appeals
• Citation: Matter of Abreu-Semino, 12 I&N Dec. 775 (B.I.A. 1968)
• Decision Date: 21 June 1968
• Docket Number: Interim Decision Number 1876,A-11910724.
• Parties: MATTER OF ABREU-SEMINO. In Deportation Proceedings.

12 I&N Dec. 775

MATTER OF ABREU-SEMINO.

In Deportation Proceedings.

Interim Decision Number 1876

A-11910724.

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Decided by Board June 21, 1968.

Conviction of unlawful sale and unlawful possession of LSD in violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(q)(2) and 21 U.S.C. 331(q)(3), respectively, is not a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952 — Section 241(a)(4) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(4)] — Convicted of crime involving moral turpitude within five years of entry, to wit: unlawful possession and sale of LSD in violation of Title 21, sections 331(q)(2) and 331(q)(3) of U.S.C.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Toney, Rose & Guarisco, Esqs. 200 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (Brief submitted)

ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: R.A. Vielhaber, Esq. Appellate Trial Attorney Henry J. Scroope, Jr., Esq. Trial Attorney (Brief submitted)

This case comes forward on certification from the special inquiry officer, who has found that the crime of which respondent was convicted does not involve moral turpitude, that respondent is, therefore, not deportable as charged, and has ordered the proceedings terminated.

Respondent is a 23-year-old divorced male alien, native and citizen of Cuba, who came to the United States in 1960 as a political refugee and who, on December 30, 1963, after a brief visit in Canada, was lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, upon presentation of a nonquota immigrant visa.

On April 12, 1967, respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on four counts of violating Title 21, U.S.C., two for unlawful sale and delivery of LSD, a depressant or stimulant drug, in violation of section 331(q)(2), and two for unlawful possession of LSD, in violation of section 331(q)(3). He was sentenced to one year each on the first two counts, the sentences to run consecutively; sentence was suspended on counts three and four, with the direction that he be placed on probation for two years, to commence after termination of the sentence imposed on the first two counts. There is no evidence that respondent has ever been charged with or convicted of any other crimes.

Respondent having conceded that the above convictions relate to him, and there being no question that the drugs involved were not narcotics (see discussion of special inquiry officer at p. 3 of his opinion), the issue of his deportability rests on whether or not the crimes of which he was convicted involve moral turpitude. We hold, with the special inquiry officer, that they do not.

The prohibition we are here concerned with, upon unauthorized traffic in depressant and stimulant drugs, was enacted by Public Law 89-74; the legislative statement of purpose accompanying the proposed legislation and contained in Senate Report No. 337 (June 21, 1965, 89th Cong.), was as follows:

The bill provides increased controls over the distribution of barbiturates, amphetamines, and other drugs having a similar effect on the central nervous system. The controls are accomplished through increased record-keeping and inspection requirements, through providing for control over intrastate traffic in these drugs because of its effect on interstate traffic, and through making possession of these drugs (other than by the user) illegal outside of the legitimate channels of commerce. The bill also increases the authority of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare over counterfeit drugs. * * * (Emphasis supplied.)

Further description of the purpose and intent of the legislation is in the law itself which, immediately after setting forth its title, goes on to state:

Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds and declares illicit traffic in depressant and stimulant drugs moving in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce; that the use of such drugs, when not under the supervision of a licensed practitioner, often endangers safety on the highways (without distinction of interstate and intrastate traffic thereon) and otherwise has become a threat to the public health and safety, making additional regulation of such drugs...