Abulfeilat

MEMORANDUM *

Ahmad Kheir Abulfeilat (“Abulfeilat”), a native and citizen of Jordan, petitions for *161 review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) decision finding him: (1) deportable as an alien who committed a crime involving moral turpitude, (2) ineligible for asylum and withholding of deportation because of the finding that he committed a particularly serious crime, (3) ineligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), (4) ineligible for a waiver of deportation under former Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 212(c) and of inadmissibility under INA section 212(h), and (5) ineligible for voluntary departure. We grant the petition for review in part and deny it in part and remand the case to the BIA.

I. Crime Involving Moral Turpitude

Abulfeilat was convicted of conspiring to violate Executive Order No. 12724 (“E.O. 12724”), which prohibited transactions with Iraq. The BIA found Abulfeilat deportable because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude within five years after the date of admission for which a sentence of one year or longer was imposed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(i). We agree. We hold that under the modified…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Although I concur in much of the disposition, 1 I see no basis upon which to grant the petition with respect to whether Abulfeilat committed a “particularly serious crime.” The immigration judge (IJ) explicitly recognized that one of the factors to consider was “whether the type and circumstance of the crime indicate that the alien would be a danger to the community,” Decision and Order (July 25, 2002) at 8-9 (citing Matter of Frentescu, 18 I. & N. Dec. 244 (BIA 1982)), and In re Q-T-MT-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 639 (BIA 1996); and Abulfeilat’s crime, which would have evaded Iraqi sanctions, was unquestionably a danger to the country — thus to the “community.” The IJ explained why, 2 the BIA’s order embraced the explanation, and remand is needless for it is clear as can be *164 that the Board believes his crime was a threat to national security. The Board is not compelled to find otherwise, so I dissent.

. I concur in Parts I, III and IV.

. Indeed, the IJ relied upon our own disposition affirming Abulfeilat’s conviction, where we noted that the express purpose of the prohibitions that Abulfeilat violated was to protect the national security.…