532/271
Decided by the Board October 8, 1953
Single scheme of criminal misconduct — Section 241 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Committing three separate and distinct acts of robbery upon three separate individuals at separate times and for the sole purpose of depriving these individuals of their possessions and an attempt to do a similar act upon a fourth individual does not constitute a single scheme of criminal misconduct. Therefore, the respondent is not within the exception contained in section 241 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and is deportable under that section.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1917 — Sentenced more than once after entry, to wit: armed robbery and putting in fear (three separate offenses); assault to rob and murder, armed; and larceny.
Lodged: Immigration and Nationality Act — Convicted of two crimes or more after entry, to wit: armed robbery and putting in fear (three separate offenses); assault to rob, armed.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: This is an appeal from the order of the special inquiry officer requiring respondent's deportation on the lodged charge stated above.
Counsel contends that because the respondent planned the commission of criminal acts and committed them all generally in the same locality and about the same period of time, and because the crimes are almost identically alike, that a single scheme of criminal misconduct must be found, thereby bringing the respondent within the exception provided by law (sec. 241 (a) (4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act). We find the contention without merit.
On October 1, 1936, respondent was convicted on pleas of guilty of counts charging the commission of armed robbery and larceny on three individuals and armed assault with intent to rob on a fourth individual. The offenses were committed on July 13, 14, 21, and 29, 1936, in three different towns which are apparently contiguous.
While we make no attempt to define what is meant by a single scheme of criminal misconduct, we are certain that committing three separate and distinct acts of robbery upon three separate individuals at separate times and for the sole purpose of depriving these individuals of their possessions, and an attempt to do a similar act upon a fourth individual, does not constitute a single scheme of criminal misconduct.
Counsel urges that action in this matter be held in abeyance pending the outcome of a writ of error he has pending in the State Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to determine whether the respondent was properly convicted of the crimes in question in 1936. We do not believe it proper to stay proceedings. If, as counsel alleges, a decision on his writ is expected shortly, and it is favorable, he may move for reopening of proceedings for further consideration. The request that proceedings he held in abeyance will be denied.
Counsel requests that the respondent be considered for discretionary relief in view of the fact that he has lived here for over 41 years and knows no other country or language. No application for relief is on record. Respondent entered the United States in 1913. His criminal record commenced in 1920 when he was 15 years of age. In 1924 he was again convicted for larceny. In 1936 he committed the four acts which resulted in the convictions previously discussed. He received concurrent sentences of from 21 to 25 years. He served 17 years imprisonment and was released sometime in 1951 or 1952. He has no dependents in the United States. He is single. Even if the respondent were eligible for discretionary relief, the favorable grant of such relief would clearly not be desirable.
Order: It is ordered that the request that proceedings be held in abeyance be denied.
It is further ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, without prejudice to further consideration when action is completed on application for writ of error.