TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tyrone Oliver Chong v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Tyrone Oliver CHONG, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

Chong v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 890 F.2d 284 (11th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
October 2, 1989
Docket
No. 89-5017
Judges
Vance, Hatchett, Clark
Citations
890 F.2d 2841989 WL 1420961989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18096
Summary
Non-Argument Calendar.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

While on permanent resident status in the United States, the petitioner, Tyrone Oliver Chong, left the country. Upon his reentry, Customs agents discovered three pounds of marijuana concealed in his belongings. The state of Florida prosecuted Chong in its courts. Pursuant to Florida Statute 948.01(3), the state court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence, but placed Chong on probation for six months.

The issue is: whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) correctly held that Chong had been “convicted” within the meaning of the immigration laws of the United States. Conviction of a felony is a ground for deportation.

The BIA properly held that the petitioner was “convicted” within the meaning of section 241(a)(ll) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251 (a)(ll), although the state court or *285 dered that the adjudication of the petitioner’s guilt be withheld. The petitioner clearly meets the standards set forth by the BIA in Matter of Ozkok, Interim Decision 3044 (BIA 1988), and thus has been “convicted” for immigration purposes. The BIA was also correct in not considering the Florida expungement statute because this court, other courts of appeals, and the BIA have expressly held that the term “convicted” in the Act must be interpreted in accordance with federal standards.

Gonzalez de Lara v. United States, 439 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir.1971).

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1992: 11993: 21995: 21996: 21998: 11999: 32003: 12009: 119922026peak 1999 · 3

Most recent

  1. CARDENAS ABREU24 I. & N. Dec. 795 (BIA 2009)
  2. United States v. Samaei260 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (M.D. Fla. 2003)
  3. ROLDAN22 I. & N. Dec. 512 (BIA 1999)
  4. Moosa v. INSNo. 96-60821 (5th Cir. Apr. 19, 1999)
  5. Wazirali Moosa, Also Known as Wazir Ali Haider Ali Moosa Zebunisa Wazirali Moosa v. Immigration and Naturalization Service171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999)
  6. PALACIOS22 I. & N. Dec. 434 (BIA 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Santos Gonzalez De Lara v. United States, 439 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1971) 30

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list