ADETIBA

Citations

• 20 I. & N. Dec. 506

Syllabus

ADETIBA, 20 I&N Dec. 506 (BIA 1992) ID 3177 (PDF) (1) The Board of ImmigrationAppeals follows its historical approach as to what constitutes a \singlescheme of criminal misconduct\ within the meaning of section 241(a)(2)(A)(ii)of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii)(Supp. II 1990), by interpreting the statutory language to mean that whenan alien has performed an act, which, in and of itself constitutes a complete,individual, and distinct crime, he is deportable when he again commitssuch an act, even though one may closely follow the other, be similarin character, and even be part of an overall plan of criminal misconductsuch an approach recognizes that the statutory language was meant to distinguishcases where there are separate and distinct crimes, but they are performedin furtherance of a single criminal episode, such as where one crime constitutesa lesser offense of another or where two crimes flow from and are thenatural consequence of a single act of criminal misconduct. Pacheco v.INS, 546 F.2d 448 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985 (1977),followed. (2) Outside their respectivecircuits, the Board will not follow the more expansive interpretationof the statutory language in question as set forth in Gonzalez-Sandovalv. INS, 910 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990) Nason v. INS, 394 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.),cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830 (1968) and Sawkow v. INS, 314 F.2d 34 (3dCir. 1963). (3) The separate crimesof which the respondent was convicted, namely using credit cards in thenames of different people, with intent to defraud, and from which he obtainedthings of value for each card during a period of time, did not arise outof a \single scheme of criminal misconduct\ within the meaningof section 241(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, notwithstanding that the crimeswere committed pursuant to an elaborate plan and the modus operandi wasthe same in each instance.