Matter of Jimenez (Board decision, September 24, 1973)

Plain-English summary

A Colombian permanent resident sought admission as a returning resident after travel to Puerto Rico. An immigration judge ordered his exclusion based on a New York conviction for possessing forgery devices with intent to use them for forgery. He challenged his guilty plea and argued that the offense did not involve moral turpitude. The Board said it could not revisit the conviction in this appeal. It held that possession with intent to commit forgery was a crime involving moral turpitude and dismissed the appeal.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authority: Former INA § 212(a)(9).
• Outcome: Exclusion and deportation order affirmed; appeal dismissed.
• Key point: The Board treated possession of forgery devices with intent to forge as a crime involving moral turpitude.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #2229

MATTER OF JIMENEZ
In Exclusion Proceedings

A-18272169

Decided by Board September 24, 1973
Conviction of criminal possession of forgery devices with intent to use them for the purpose of forgery (N.Y.) is conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. EXCLUDABLE: Act of 1952—Section 212(a)(9) [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)]—Prior to en- try—convicted of crime involving moral tur- pitude, to wit: criminal possession of forgery de- vices.

ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: Juan J. Turull, Esquire P.O. Box 2099
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00903

This is an appeal from an order of exclusion and deportation entered by the immigration judge. The appeal will be dismissed. The record relates to a married male alien, a native and citizen of Colombia, 42 years of age, who was admitted to the United States as an immigrant on July 17, 1968. The applicant last arrived at San Juan, Puerto Rico on September 21, 1972 and applied for admission as a returning resident. The applicant was paroled into the United States pending these exclusion proceedings. He is charged with being excludable on the ground that he was con- victed of a crime involving moral turpitude prior to entry, to wit, criminal possession of forgery devices. The record before us con- tains a certified copy of the record of conviction, which shows that the applicant was convicted in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on a plea of guilty on January 14, 1971.
On appeal, counsel contends that the conviction should not be used as the basis for exclusion because the applicant was not in fact guilty. Counsel contends, among other things, that the . applicant did not know English well enough to enter a meaningful guilty plea. Such a collateral challenge to a judgment presents no question which we can consider; the conviction is res judicata on the issue of the applicant's guilt.

442
 Interim Decision #2229 The applicant further contends that the crime of which he was convicted does not involve moral turpitude. We conclude that it does. Criminal possession has been held to be a crime involving moral turpitude when accompanied by intent to commit a crime involv- ing moral turpitude, U.S. ex rel. Guarino v. Uhl, 107 F.2d 339 (C.A. 2, 1939). In this case the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to the charge of criminal possession of forgery devices with intent to use them for the purpose of forgery (Ex. 3; pp. B2 & B15). Forgery has been held to be a crime involving moral turpitude, 38 Op. Atty. Gen. 128 (1934); Matter of A-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 52 (BIA 1953); Morasch v. INS, 363 F.2d 30 (C.A. 9, 1966); U.S. ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 51 F.2d 1022 (C.A. 2, 1931). Thus, the crime of which the applicant was convicted involved moral turpitude. The decision of the immigration judge was correct. ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

443