ESQUEDA
(2) The element of guilty knowledge, or mens rea, is not irrelevant to a conviction pursuant to section 11550 of the California Health and Safety Code for use or being under the influence of a controlled substance.
(3) Since the language of the exclusion and deportation grounds of the Act relating to drug convictions was significantly broadened by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, immigration consequences may now result from a conviction under a law relating to a controlled substance that contains no element of mens rea. Lennon v. INS, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975), distinguished. Matter of Davis, 16 I&N Dec. 748 (BIA 1979); Matter of Wolf, 16 I&N Dec. 125 (BIA 1977); and Matter of Lennon, 15 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1974), vacated, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975), overruled. Matter of Poon, 17 I&N Dec. 350 (BIA 1980), aff‘d, 707 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1983); Matter of Pritchard, 16 I&N Dec. 340 (BIA 1977); Matter of Awadh, 15 I&N Dec. 775 (BIA 1976); and Matter of Pasquini, 15 I&N Dec. 683 (BIA 1976), aff‘d, 557 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1977), modified.
In a decision dated April 7, 1989, the immigration judge found the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration
The respondent is a 33-year-old native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in March 1988. The record reflects that he was convicted on October 25, 1988, in the Ventura County Municipal Court, State of California, of using and being under the influence of a controlled substance, namely opiates, cocaine, methamphetamines, or a combination thereof, in violation of section 11550 of the California Health and Safety Code.
At his deportation hearing, the respondent admitted that he was convicted of the crime of use and being under the influence of a controlled substance, but argued that his conviction did not subject him to deportation. The crux of his contention was that Congress did not intend to include convictions for use and being under the influence of drugs within the meaning of section 241(a)(11) of the Act when it revised that ground of deportability by the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. The immigration judge rejected the respondent‘s argument and found him deportable as charged. The respondent has reiterated his contentions on appeal.
We note at the outset that the fact of the respondent‘s conviction, which supports his deportability in this case, has been established by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966);
Prior to the amendments of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, section 241(a)(11) of the Act provided for the deportability of an alien who at any time has been
convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation relating to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana, or who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation governing or controlling the taxing, manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose of the manufacture, production, compounding, transportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, marihuana, any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves or isonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining opiate.
Section 241(a)(11) of the Act,
Interpreting that version of the law, we held in Matter of Sum, 13 I&N Dec. 569 (BIA 1970), that an alien‘s conviction for use of a narcotic drug could not be equated with a conviction for unlawful possession of the drug so as to bring the alien within the “illicit possession” provisions of section 241(a)(11) of the Act, or the similar exclusion provisions of section 212(a)(23) of the Act,
Following the passage of section 1751 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 100 Stat. at 3247-48, section 241(a)(11) of the Act was amended to provide for the deportability of an alien who at any time has been
convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
Section 241(a)(11) of the Act,
of the changes to this section of the Act, we again addressed the question raised in Matter of Sum, supra, in our decision in Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, 19 I&N Dec. 613 (BIA 1988). We noted that the revised language of the statute no longer contained any limitation regarding the kind of conviction within its scope. Concluding that it was now broad enough to include convictions for use and being under the influence of drugs, we determined that Matter of Sum had been superseded by the amendment to the Act.
The respondent argues that our interpretation of the revised language of section 241(a)(11) of the Act is too broad. He asserts that the amendment was aimed at the problem of drug trafficking by aliens and did not envision the inclusion of convictions for use of drugs, which had not previously been grounds for deportability. According to the respondent, the intent of Congress was only to include “designer” drugs within the scope of the statute and to simplify it by eliminating the list of prohibited drugs, making reference to the Controlled Substances Act instead. Consonant with this position, the respondent contends that Varga v. Rosenberg, supra, which held that use of drugs was not a deportable offense, remains controlling law on this issue. Thus, he argues that Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, supra, should be overruled as too harsh an interpretation of the statute. We decline to alter the position taken in that case.
We note first that it is well recognized that Congress has historically exhibited a strong national policy to deport aliens convicted of drug offenses from our country. See, e.g., Ayala-Chavez v. United States INS, 944 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1991); Mason v. Brooks, 862 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1988); Blackwood v. INS, 803 F.2d 1165 (11th Cir. 1986); Kolios v. INS, 532 F.2d 786 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 884 (1976); Kelly v. INS, 349 F.2d 473 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 932 (1965); Garcia-Gonzales v. INS, 344 F.2d 804 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 840 (1965); Matter of U-M-, 20 I&N Dec. 327 (BIA 1991), aff‘d, 989 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1993); Matter of Ozkok, 19 I&N Dec. 546 (BIA 1988); Matter of Favela, 16 I&N Dec. 753 (BIA 1979); Matter of A-F-, 8 I&N Dec. 429 (BIA, A.G. 1959). In recent years Congress has been active in passing legislation that even more clearly manifests its intention to limit the ability of drug offenders to remain in the United States. See, e.g., Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978; Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181; see also Matter of K-, 20 I&N Dec. 418 (BIA 1991); Matter of U-M-, supra;
In a recent case addressing the issue now before us, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recognized an incongruity in the inclusion of this exception for a single conviction involving possession of a personal-use quantity of marijuana, but the omission of a similar exclusion for actual use of marijuana. Flores-Arellano v. INS, 5 F.3d 360 (9th Cir. 1993).5 Nevertheless, the court determined that the plain language of the phrase “any law ... relating to a controlled substance” is unambiguous and that its ordinary meaning encompasses laws proscribing use or being under the influence of a controlled substance. Examining the legislative history of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, the court found that it was inconclusive and lacked the clear indication of a contrary intention necessary to overcome the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, the court rejected the alien‘s reliance on Varga v. Rosenberg, supra, and Matter of Sum, supra. In so doing, the court distinguished the previous version of the
MENS REA REQUIREMENT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW
Our analysis of the statute does not end here, however, because the respondent has also argued that Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, supra, is improper since it implicitly overrules Lennon v. INS, supra, as well as Matter of Wolf, 16 I&N Dec. 125 (BIA 1977), in which the Board adopted the Lennon decision. The aliens in those cases had been convicted of possession of marijuana under a British statute which was found to impose absolute liability. In Lennon, the Second Circuit determined that in light of the “deeply rooted requirement of knowledge and intent in our legal system,” Congress did not intend to subject an alien “convicted under a foreign law that made guilty knowledge irrelevant” to the harsh immigration consequences of a drug conviction. Lennon v. INS, supra, at 193-94. We stated in Wolf that we would follow the court‘s interpretation of the statute in question, agreeing that a person‘s lack of knowledge that a prohibited substance was in his possession was irrelevant to the offense defined by the British law. The respondent asserts that section 11550 of the California Health and Safety Code, under which he was convicted, similarly requires no proof of guilty knowledge. Thus, he argues that the rationale stated in Lennon should apply to him.
We have reviewed our decisions dealing with so-called “strict liability” statutes and conclude that they do not require us to overrule Matter of Hernandez-Ponce, supra, as the respondent urges. See Matter of Poon, 17 I&N Dec. 350 (BIA 1980), aff‘d, 707 F.2d 258 (6th Cir. 1983); Matter of Davis, 16 I&N Dec. 748 (BIA 1979); Matter of Pritchard, 16 I&N Dec. 340 (BIA 1977); Matter of Wolf, supra; Matter of Awadh, 15 I&N Dec. 775 (BIA 1976); Matter of Pasquini, 15 I&N Dec. 683 (BIA 1976), aff‘d, 557 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1977); Matter of Lennon, 15 I&N Dec. 9 (BIA 1974), vacated, 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975). We note that in all but one of these cases we found that either the statute or the case law interpreting it provided for some defense permitting the defendant to prove his lack of knowledge. We therefore concluded that the statute was not one of strict liability and did not fall within the ambit of the Second Circuit‘s holding in Lennon. Matter of Poon, supra (Hong Kong statute containing rebuttable presumption of knowledge); Matter of Pritchard, supra (British law revised to permit
The respondent in this case was convicted under section 11550(a) of the California Health and Safety Code. That statute provides in pertinent part as follows:
No person shall use, or be under the influence of any controlled substance ... except when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the state to dispense, prescribe, or administer controlled substances. It shall be the burden of the defense to show that it comes within the exception.
The respondent has presented no evidence indicating the intent of the California legislature, nor any interpretation by the state courts regarding the requirement of an element of mens rea in this statute. We note, however, that the California Penal Code contains the following provision: “In every crime or public offense there must exist a union, or joint operation of act and intent ... ”
Construing this statutory provision in People v. Gory, 170 P.2d 433 (Cal. 1946), a case involving possession of drugs, the California Supreme Court stated the following:
But this does not mean that a positive, willful intent to violate the law is an essential ingredient of every offense. Sometimes an act is expressly prohibited by statute, in which case the intentional doing of the act, regardless of good motive or ignorance of its criminal character, constitutes the offense denounced by law. Instances illustrating this principle may be found in statutes enacted for the protection of public morals, public health, and the public peace and safety. If a specific intent is not made an ingredient of the statutory offense, it is not necessary to prove such specific intent in order to justify a conviction.
Id. at 435 (citation omitted). The court went on to conclude that neither intent nor knowledge was a required element under the statute defining the offense of possession of drugs. Id. at 436.
The decision in Gory was subsequently given conflicting interpretations by the lower appellate courts of California, however, some holding that knowledge of the presence of the substance alone was necessary for conviction, while others required proof that the defendant also knew the physical character of the article. See People v. Telfer, 284 Cal. Rptr. 913 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991), for the historical
This knowledge requirement was subsequently extended to prosecutions for sale of controlled substances in People v. Daniels, 537 P.2d 1232 (Cal. 1975). In that case the Supreme Court again found, as in Gory, that the statutory offense required only proof of a general criminal intent to commit the prohibited act and that no specific intent to violate the law was necessary for conviction. However, the court noted that the element of knowledge of the character of the substance sold had been judicially added as another prerequisite to conviction. See also People v. Gorg, supra (stating that awareness of the narcotic nature of a plant must be shown to sustain a conviction for cultivating marijuana); People v. Carrasco, 173 Cal. Rptr. 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981) (requiring proof of the dual knowledge elements of presence and nature of the substance for conviction for possession of drugs in a penal institution).
Thus, we find that the underlying presumption in California law that every crime contains an element of intent has been recognized through judicial interpretation as having applicability to drug offenses. By adding a knowledge requirement, the California courts have made evidence of an offender‘s guilty mind essential for a conviction in various contexts. Cf. Tart v. Massachusetts, 949 F.2d 490 (1st Cir. 1991) (noting that absent clear evidence of contrary legislative intent, criminal statutes are generally presumed to require the state to establish defendant‘s culpable state of mind); United States v. Singleton, 946 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1991) (stating that a presumption exists that statutes include an element of mental culpability), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1117 (1992). But cf. People v. Telfer, supra (requiring no proof of knowledge of the physical character of the substance being manufac
Moreover, we note that in this case, as in others involving convictions under the California use statute, the complaint charges that the use of drugs was “willful.” See, e.g., Sallas v. Municipal Court, 150 Cal. Rptr. 543 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978); In re Becerra, 32 Cal. Rptr. 910 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1963). The word “willful” has generally been stated to mean that “a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements appears.” United States v. Hoyland, 914 F.2d 1125 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 2.02, p.249) (emphasis added); see also Hirsch v. INS, 308 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1962) (quoting Neely v. United States, 300 F.2d 67, 72 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 864 (1962) (upholding a jury instruction that the word “willful” means that the act is done deliberately and with knowledge)); American Surety Co. v. Sullivan, 7 F.2d 605, 606 (2d Cir. 1925) (defining “willful” as meaning that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing). This inclusion of the term “willful” in the respondent‘s complaint reinforces our opinion that a person could not be convicted of use of drugs under California law in the absence of some finding of guilty knowledge on the part of the user.
Finally, the offense defined by this statute, to “use, or be under the influence” of a controlled substance, itself implies an active and purposeful participation on the part of the offender. The definitions of the verb to “use” include the following: “to consume or take (as liquor or drugs) regularly“; “to carry out a purpose or action by means of“; “to put into service esp. to attain an end.” Webster‘s New Collegiate Dictionary 1288 (1977). These terms suggest that use of a controlled substance inherently involves a conscious, voluntary act on the part of the user and, consequently a lack of innocence.6 Cf. United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 609 (1971) (noting the obviousness of the fact that possession of handguns, which are as dangerous as narcotics, is not an innocent act). See generally United States v. Erne, 576 F.2d 212,
On the basis of the following factors, we conclude that the respondent‘s conviction under the California statute prohibiting the use of controlled substances was not rendered without regard to his mental culpability: the nature of the crime of use of a controlled substance, the principle underlying the California penal laws that the element of intent is a prerequisite to crime, the California case law requiring guilty knowledge for a conviction for possession or sale of drugs, the fact that willfulness was alleged in this and other use cases, and the absence of any assertion by the respondent that his use of drugs was innocent or that he was placed under their influence involuntarily. We also note that the respondent has submitted no support for his premise that a person could be convicted of using or being under the influence of a controlled substance in California in circumstances where it was established that he or she was mistaken as to the nature of the drug or was tricked or forced into taking it.7
Having considered the above factors, we reject the respondent‘s assertions that guilty knowledge was irrelevant to his conviction under California law and that a finding of deportability would be in contradiction to Lennon v. INS, supra. Moreover, as we have previously pointed out, the Ninth Circuit recently reviewed a conviction under the same California statute at issue here and found the convicted alien deportable because the plain language of the deportation statute clearly “encompasses laws proscribing use or being under the influence of a controlled substance.” Flores-Arellano v. INS, supra,
APPLICABILITY OF LENNON
In light of the aforementioned changes in the immigration laws effected by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, we now find it appropriate to question whether Lennon v. INS, supra, remains applicable to the current statute at all. In this regard we note that the immigration law reviewed by the Second Circuit in its 1975 opinion addressed violations of laws proscribing the “illicit” possession of drugs, a term which carries with it the connotation of an intentional violation.8 In 1986, however, Congress eliminated the words “illicit possession” from the statute, broadening the language of the law to render deportable aliens convicted of violating “any law ... relating to a controlled substance.” See sections 212(a)(23) and 241(a)(11) of the Act,
We acknowledge that the Second Circuit‘s perception of the intent of Congress resulted in part from its reliance on the following statement made by the Board in Matter of Lennon, supra: “[I]t is fair to state that in enacting section 212(a)(23), Congress did not intend to exclude persons who were entirely unaware that a prohibited substance was in their possession.” Id. at 18. We reached this conclusion based solely on the fact that elements of knowledge or intent had been included in statutes prohibiting the possession of drugs under both federal law and the law of the District of Columbia. However, we note that a number of state statutes currently in force in this country that prohibit the use or possession of drugs do not specifically include any element of mental culpability for conviction.9 Thus, although, as the Second Circuit observed, the concept of mens rea is a basic tenet of our system of criminal jurisprudence, it is not without limitations. See United States v. Freed, supra, at 607 (1971); Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250-52 (1952); United States v. Hoyland, supra, at 1129; United States v. Erne, supra, at 214; Lennon v. INS, supra, at 193; see also Anthony A. Cuomo, Mens Rea and Status Criminality, 40 S. Cal. L. Rev. 463, 473-74 (1967). The courts have recognized that “the authority of the State in the exercise of its police power to regulate the administration, sale, prescription and use of dangerous and habit-forming drugs” is unquestioned. Minnesota ex rel. Whipple v. Martinson, 256 U.S. 41, 45 (1921) (emphasis added); see also Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 664 (1962). Consequently, exceptions to the general requirement of guilty knowledge in criminal statutes have been carved out to permit the passage of laws to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, particularly in the area of drug enforcement. See United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943); United States v. Behrman, 258 U.S. 280 (1922); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922); see also United States v. Freed, supra, at 607, 609; Morissette v. United States, supra, at 250-60; United States v. Hoyland, supra, at 1128; Stepniewski v. Gagnon, 732 F.2d 567, 571 (7th Cir. 1984). Therefore, the concept of applying absolute liability in cases involving
In this regard we note the Second Circuit‘s questionable comment that a person convicted under the British law at issue would be “quite innocent under our system of criminal justice.” Lennon v. INS, supra, at 194 n.16. The court further stated that its holding would “not, of course, give any comfort to those convicted in the United States of drug violations.” Id. at 194. Thus, the ruling in Lennon was specifically limited to convictions under foreign statutes and does not constrain us in this case.
Inasmuch as the immigration laws that were the basis for the Second Circuit‘s interpretation in Lennon have been changed to significantly broaden the scope of the statute regarding drug violations, we conclude that Lennon v. INS no longer remains controlling law. Furthermore, since the court‘s ruling was specifically limited to convictions under foreign laws, we find that the Lennon decision is, in any case, inapplicable in cases such as that now before us, where the alien was convicted in this country under the laws of the United States.
In light of the foregoing conclusions, the validity of our own decision in Matter of Lennon, supra, must also be reexamined. As we noted in our previous discussion, Congress has intensified its efforts to prevent drug offenders from avoiding deportation by passing increasingly more stringent laws in the 20 years since Matter of Lennon was written. By using the inclusive words, “any law or regulation ... relating to a controlled substance,” Congress has exhibited its intent to expand the reach of the exclusion and deportation grounds to all drug offenders, setting virtually no limits beyond the exception provided for those convicted of a single possession offense involving 30 grams or less of marijuana. See Flores-Arellano v. INS, supra. Inasmuch as the statute underlying our decision in Matter of Lennon has been amended to include this comprehensive language, we no longer consider the basic premise for our conclusion regarding congressional intent in that case to be tenable. Accordingly, we now find it appropriate to overrule Matter of Lennon. In addition, Matter of Wolf, supra, and Matter of Davis, supra, which followed Matter of Lennon, must be overruled as well. Finally, we also withdraw from Matter of Poon, supra, Matter of Pritchard, supra, Matter of Awadh, supra, and Matter of Pasquini, supra, to the extent they indicate that aliens convicted under a statute without any element of scienter are not subject to exclusion or deportation.
Inasmuch as we reject the respondent‘s contention on appeal that his conviction does not render him deportable, the appeal will be dismissed.
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.
CONCURRING OPINION: David B. Holmes, Alternate Board Member
I respectfully concur.
I concur in the finding that Congress intended to include the crimes of use and being under the influence of drugs as deportable offenses under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
Notes
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES.—
(i) CONVICTION.—Any alien who at any time after entry has been convicted of a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)), other than a single
Section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Thus, in the current, revised version of statute, Congress retained the phrase, “any law ... relating to a controlled substance.” Id.