Braun v. INS, 992 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner notes that, in In re Zignis, 14 I. N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974), the BIA held that a conviction set aside under the FYCA could not serve as the basis for deportation because such a result would be inconsistent with Congress's objective of "rehabilitat[ing] youthful offenders." In re Zignis, 14 I. N. Dec. at 622.
Braun v. INS, 992 F.2d 1016, 1019 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner notes that, in In re Zignis, 14 I. N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974), the BIA held that a conviction set aside under the FYCA could not serve as the basis for deportation because such a result would be inconsistent with Congress's objective of "rehabilitat[ing] youthful offenders." In re Zignis, 14 I. N. Dec. at 622.
Thus, we do not reach the question of whether a set aside conviction may be used as a basis for deportation. See Matter of Zingis, 14 I. N. Dec. 621, 623-24 (BIA 1974); see also Mestre Morera v. INS, 462 F.2d 1030, 1032 (1st Cir. 1972). Alternatively, Yacoubian argues that apart from the FYCA, the district court acted properly as part of its "inherent authority."
The Immigration Board has previously ruled that convictions expunged under the FYCA may not be considered in deportation proceedings. See Matter of Zingis, 14 I. N. Dec. 621 (BIA 1974). Petitioner argues that the same result should obtain in admissability decisions.
He questions why he should be deported when someone convicted of a crime of moral turpitude could avoid deportation by obtaining the same order of expungement. He also notes that had he been convicted for a narcotics offense under federal law and dealt with under the Federal Youth Corrections Act, he would not be deported following expungement, Mestre Morera v. INS, 462 F.2d 1030 (1st Cir. 1972); Matter of Zingis, 14 I. N.Dec. ___ (I.D. 2270) (B.I.A. 1974). Further, the Service now accords recognition to state expungements of marijuana offenders treated and expunged under state juvenile statutes, Matter of Andrade, 14 I. N.Dec. ___ (I.D. 2276) (B.I.A. 1974).
And they have some authority on their side. See, e.g., Matter of Zingis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 621, 625 (BIA 1974) (“Under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, the conviction, when it is set aside, is totally set aside. It may not be used in any way. It is a greater remedy than a pardon.”). The biggest problem for Martha and Jorge is jurisdictional: the doctrine of consular nonreviewability insulates the decisions of consular officers from review.
And they have some authority on their side. See, e.g., Matter of Zingis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 621, 625 (BIA 1974) ("Under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, the conviction, when it is set aside, is totally set aside. It may not be used in any way. It is a greater remedy than a pardon."). The biggest problem for Martha and Jorge is jurisdictional: the doctrine of consular nonreviewability insulates the decisions of consular officers from review.
Two years later, the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed and expressly held that convictions set aside by FYCA carry no immigration consequences. See Matter of Zingis, 14 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 1974). ("Under the provisions of the Federal Youth Corrections Act, the conviction, when it is set aside, is totally set aside. It may not be used in any way.").