Matter of Martinez (Board decision, August 26, 1977)

Matter of Martinez (BIA ID 2611, 1977): counterfeiting conviction barred voluntary departure

Decision type
Board decision
Dockets
ID 2611, A-22380631
Decided
August 26, 1977
Outcome
Affirmed
Precedential status
Citable Board precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-09

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Board precedent from 1977, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1977
The immigration statutes and regulations may have been amended, and later Board or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Final BIA decision
This published precedent is a final decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under the Board's Policy Manual, Chapter 1.4(d), an order issued by the Board is final unless and until it is stayed, modified, rescinded, or overruled by the Board, the Attorney General, or a federal court, and it is effective as of its issuance date unless the order provides otherwise. This is a published precedent decision, not an unpublished party-only disposition.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BIA release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: BIA released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (justice.gov)

Plain-English summary

The respondent conceded that he entered the United States without inspection but appealed the denial of voluntary departure. He had been convicted under a federal law concerning counterfeit U.S. obligations. The Board found that the offense required intent to defraud and therefore involved moral turpitude. Because he committed it during the five-year period relevant to voluntary departure, he could not establish the required good moral character. The Board dismissed his appeal.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: Immigration and Nationality Act §§ 101(f)(3), 212(a)(9), 241(a)(2), and 244(e); 18 U.S.C. § 473.
  • Outcome: Appeal dismissed; denial of voluntary departure upheld.
  • Key point: A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 473 involves fraud and prevented this respondent from meeting the good moral character requirement.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Interim Decision #2611

MATTER OF MARTINEZ

In Deportation Proceedings

A-22380631

Decided by Board August 26, 1977

(1) Respondent conceded deportability under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but contested the immigration judge's denial of his application for voluntary departure.

(2) On May 4, 1976, respondent was convicted of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 473. A necessary element for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. 473 is intent to defraud, and in a crime in which fraud is an ingredient, moral turpitude attaches.

(3) By virtue of this conviction, respondent falls within the class of persons described in section 212(a)(9) of the Act and he cannot establish that he has been a person of good moral character for the period required in section 101(f)(3) of the Act. Therefore, he is statutorily ineligible for voluntary departure under section 244(e) of the Act.

CHARGE:

Order: Act of 1952—Section 241(a)(2) [8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)]—Entry without inspection

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Pro se

BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Wilson, Appleman, and Maguire, Board Members

The respondent appeals from a decision of an immigration judge dated October 7, 1976. In his decision the immigration judge found the respondent deportable under section 241(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, denied his application for voluntary departure and ordered his deportation to Ecuador.

The respondent is a native and citizen of Ecuador. He entered the United States without inspection. He was convicted on May 4, 1976, of violating 18 U.S.C. section 473.

18 U.S.C. section 473 provides: “Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” The respondent was found guilty of the offense described in this section because he aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, procured and induced the transfer and delivery of 210 counterfeit ten dollar Federal Reserve notes with the intent that the same be passed, published and used as true and genuine knowing the same to be forged.

At the hearing the respondent admitted the allegations of fact and conceded deportability. The only issue on appeal is the denial of the respondent's application for voluntary departure.

The immigration judge properly found the respondent statutorily ineligible for the privilege of voluntary departure. The respondent is barred from showing good moral character during the period of time required by section 244(e) of the Act.

Section 101(f)(3) of the Act prevents any alien from being regarded as a person of good moral character if he falls within the class of persons described in section 212(a)(9) of the Act, if the offense described therein, for which such alien was convicted, was committed during the period for which good moral character must be established.

A necessary element for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. section 473 is intent to defraud. United States v. Wilkerson, 469 F.2d 963 (5 Cir. 1972), cert. denied 410 U.S. 986 (1973). Moral turpitude attaches to crimes where fraud is an ingredient. Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). Accordingly, the respondent was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and he falls within the class of persons excludable under section 212(a)(9) of the Act. He is unable to establish good moral character during the five-year period required by section 244(e) of the Act since he committed that crime on January 19, 1976. Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed.

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace