Brigette Karin Johnson v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

We are asked to decide whether violation of the Travel Act by an alien can be a deportable offense.

Johnson seeks review of a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) ordering her deportation. She also asks us to review whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in not reopening her deportation proceeding to consider new evidence.

I

Johnson is a German citizen who emigrated to the United States in 1979 and later attained permanent resident status. In 1985, she transported an automobile from Texas to California for her boyfriend. The car contained a hidden compartment which was used to transport the proceeds from her boyfriend’s ongoing drug transactions.

Johnson pled guilty to an information which charged her with “traveling] in interstate commerce ... with the intention of distributing the proceeds derived from the unlawful distribution of narcotics and controlled substances....” in violation of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952 . 1 Johnson also told the federal district court in Oklahoma that she “believed that my boyfriend was going to use it [the car] to put money in it from narcotics.” The court sentenced Johnson to four years imprisonment…

dissenting:

I disagree that the Board of Immigration Appeals may deport an alien on the basis of otherwise inadmissible evidence, simply because that evidence was placed into the case file by the alien’s attorney.

Deportation proceedings need not follow traditional rules of evidence, but are governed by federal statutes, executive regulations, and judicially-mandated procedural requirements. All relevant sources of law make clear that Johnson should have had the opportunity to confront the witnesses against her. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 requires that in deportation hearings “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine witnesses against him ... and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the government.” See also 8 C.F.R. § 242.16 . Similarly, we have held that hearsay statements such as the BIA affidavit cannot be relied upon if such use is not “fundamentally fair.” Cunanan v. I.N.S., 856 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1988); Baliza v. I.N.S., 709 F.2d 1231, 1233 (9th Cir.1983). Accordingly, when the government introduces a hearsay statement and does not attempt to produce the relevant witnesses at the deportation hearing, we have not hesitated to remand to the court below with…

971 F.2d 340 Brigette Karin JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent. Nos. 91-70112, 91-70563. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 7, 1992. Decided July 29, 1992. Cindy M. Cipriani, Marcelle E. Mihalia, Peter N. Larrabee, Gray, Cary, Ames & Frye, San Diego, Cal., for petitioner. David M. McConnell and Charles E. Pazar, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent. Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Before: ALARCON, NORRIS, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: 1 We are asked to decide whether violation of the Travel Act by an alien can be a deportable offense. 2 Johnson seeks review of a decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") ordering her deportation. She also asks us to review whether the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred in not reopening her deportation proceeding to consider new evidence. 3 * Johnson is a German citizen who emigrated to the United States in 1979 and later attained permanent resident status. In 1985, she transported an automobile from Texas to…