OZKOK
19 I. & N. Dec. 546 (1988)
Rule of Law:
A conviction exists for immigration purposes if a formal judgment of guilt has been entered by a court or, if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, when a finding or admission of guilt occurs, some form of punishment or restraint on liberty is imposed, and a judgment of guilt may be entered automatically upon probation violation without further proceedings regarding guilt.
Facts:
- Ozkok is a 32-year-old native and citizen of Turkey who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on October 9, 1967.
- On August 20, 1981, Ozkok pleaded guilty to unlawful possession with intent to distribute cocaine in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland.
- On October 23, 1981, the Maryland court stayed judgment and placed Ozkok on probation for 3 years, pursuant to Article 27, section 641 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.
- The Maryland court further ordered Ozkok to perform 100 hours of volunteer community service and to pay a $1,500 fine plus court costs.
- Maryland law, Article 27, section 641(b), stipulated that upon violation of probation, the court may enter judgment and proceed with disposition as if the person had not been placed on probation.
- Maryland law, Article 27, section 641(c), provided that upon fulfillment of probation terms, discharge is without judgment of conviction and 'is not a conviction for purposes of any disqualification or disability imposed by law because of conviction of crime.'
Procedural Posture:
- On October 8, 1982, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing, charging Ozkok with deportability under section 241(a)(11) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- Ozkok denied deportability before an immigration judge, arguing that the state court action did not constitute a 'conviction' for immigration purposes under Board standards.
- In a decision dated September 13, 1985, the immigration judge found Ozkok deportable as an alien convicted of a narcotics violation and ordered him deported from the United States.
- On October 18, 1985, the immigration judge certified his decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals for review.
- Ozkok filed a motion with the Board to vacate the order of deportation and terminate proceedings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an alien's plea of guilty to a narcotics offense, coupled with a stayed judgment, probation, community service, and a fine under a state statute allowing automatic entry of judgment upon probation violation, constitute a final 'conviction' sufficient to support a deportation order under federal immigration law?
Opinions:
Majority - Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members
Yes, Ozkok's plea of guilty, the imposition of punishment, and the automatic entry of judgment upon probation violation under Maryland law constitute a final 'conviction' sufficient to support a deportation order because his case meets the newly established federal standard for what constitutes a conviction for immigration purposes. The Board found that its previous three-pronged test from Matter of L-R- had led to anomalous and unfair results, where immigration status depended on the 'vagaries of state law' regarding criminal procedures. To remedy this, the Board established a revised, uniform federal standard for determining a conviction, affirming that a conviction exists if a formal judgment of guilt is entered, or if adjudication of guilt has been withheld, when: (1) a judge or jury has found the alien guilty or the alien has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or admitted sufficient facts; (2) the judge has ordered some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on liberty; and (3) a judgment of guilt may be entered upon probation violation without further proceedings regarding the original guilt. The Board noted that this federal standard should not depend on state law, citing Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc. and Matter of A-F-. For narcotics violations, a conviction is final regardless of expungement, a principle affirmed from Matter of A-F-. Applying this new standard, Ozkok's guilty plea satisfied the first prong, his probation, community service, and fine satisfied the second, and the Maryland statute's provision for automatic judgment upon probation violation satisfied the third, thus establishing a final conviction. The Board explicitly overruled prior inconsistent decisions.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in immigration law, establishing a uniform federal standard for what constitutes a 'conviction,' thereby significantly limiting the impact of state ameliorative criminal procedures on federal deportation consequences. By broadening the definition of a conviction to include deferred adjudications that meet specific criteria, Ozkok ensured that aliens could not easily evade deportation for criminal acts merely due to variations in state legal terminology or procedural steps. This ruling provides a more consistent and predictable framework for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and immigration courts, especially concerning serious offenses like narcotics violations, which Congress intended to be grounds for deportation.
