USCA1 Opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 94-1011
HENRY OLAWALE BALOGUN,
Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,
Respondent.
__________________
ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN
ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
___________________
Before
Torruella, Selya and Cyr,
Circuit Judges
______________
___________________
Henry Olawale Balogun on brief pro se.
_____________________
Frank W, Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M.
________________ ___________
Evans, Assistant Director, and John L. Davis, Attorney, Office of
_____ _____________
Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
__________________
July 28, 1994
__________________
Per Curiam. Petitioner seeks review of a final
___________
order of deportation by the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA). His sole argument on appeal is that the BIA erred in
finding him deportable under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)(A)(ii), because he had been
convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude "not arising out
of a single scheme of criminal misconduct." Petitioner
argues that his convictions should be construed as arising
from a "single scheme" because they were part of a continuing
criminal enterprise. He asserts that his crimes thus
"morally constitute only a single wrong."
Petitioner pled guilty in a United States district
court to one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and
three counts of mail fraud. The indictment charged that from
about April 1, 1989 to October 16, 1991, he conspired with
others to use the mails to submit false accident reports and
claims to various insurance companies. The specific acts of
fraud to which petitioner pled guilty occurred on three
separate dates: October 16, 1990, October 21, 1991 and
November 15, 1991. The crimes involved three different
insurance companies, separate locations, and the use by
petitioner of three different aliases.1 Petitioner's 33-
____________________
1. Petitioner does not deny the accuracy of the facts
recited in the indictment. At the deportation hearing he
admitted participating in the filing of 124 false accident
reports, and receiving $217,000 therefrom.
-2-
month sentence was affirmed on appeal. United States v.
______________
Balogun, 989 F.2d 20 (1st Cir. 1993).
_______
In Pacheco v. INS, 546 F.2d 448 (1st Cir. 1976),
_______ ___
cert. denied, 430 U.S. 985 (1977), we interpreted the meaning
____________
of the statutory language "single scheme" in light of the
purpose of the Act, accepting that the intent of Congress was
to give "a one-time alien offender . . . a second chance
before he could be deported." Pacheco, 546 F.2d at 451.
_______
To us this suggests that a scheme, to be a "single
scheme," must take place at one time; there must be
no substantial interruption that would allow the
participant to disassociate himself from his
enterprise and reflect on what he has done.
. . . .
Our present thinking is that both the purpose of
the statute and the use of the adjective "single"
point to a temporally integrated episode of
continuous activity. When the immediate activity
has ended, even though a "scheme" calls for future
activity a participant has his second chance to
make a decision. He need not further pursue a
multistage scheme.
Id. at 451-52.
___
Petitioner implicitly recognizes that under Pacheco
_______
his crimes cannot be characterized as a "single scheme." He
argues, however, that this court should apply the more
"expansive definition" adopted by the Ninth Circuit. In
Gonzalez-Sandoval v. INS, 910 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1990), the
_________________ ___
Ninth Circuit reaffirmed the approach it had adopted in Wood
____
v. Hoy, 266 F.2d 825 (9th Cir. 1959), holding that the
___
government had not disproved the existence of a single scheme
-3-
where uncontradicted, credible evidence showed that the two
predicate crimes were planned at the same time and executed
according to the plan. Older cases from the Second and Third
Circuits suggest a similarly expansive definition. See Nason
___ _____
v. INS, 394 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 830
___ ____________
(1968); Sawkow v. INS, 314 F.2d 34 (3d Cir. 1963).
______ ___
In Pacheco, however, we rejected the approach
_______
upon which petitioner relies. Moreover, in Matter of
__________
Adetiba, Interim Dec. 3177, 1992 WL 195812 (B.I.A. May 22,
_______
1992), the BIA declined to adopt the Ninth Circuit's
"expansive definition," fearing that it might insulate from
deportability aliens who formulate a plan to commit many
separate crimes, while deporting those who commit two crimes
without a plan. That result, the BIA said, would be absurd.
Adetiba, 1992 WL 195812, at *5. The BIA characterized
_______
Pacheco as following most closely its own analysis, and
_______
decided that except in jurisdictions where a circuit court
has ruled otherwise, it would interpret the statute as
follows:
[T]he statutory exception refers to acts, which
although separate crimes in and of themselves, were
performed in furtherance of a single criminal
episode, such as where one crime constitutes a
lesser offense of another or where two crimes flow
from and are the natural consequence of a single
act of criminal misconduct.
Id. at *5. Since then, the Fifth and Tenth Circuits have
___
upheld the BIA's definition as a reasonable interpretation of
-4-
the law. See Thanh Huu Nguyen v. INS, 991 F.2d 621 (10th
___ _________________ ___
Cir. 1993) (adopting the BIA's definition after giving due
deference to the agency's interpretation of ambiguous law as
required by Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources
_______________________ __________________
Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)); Iredia v. INS,
_____________________ ______ ___
981 F.2d 847 (5th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 203
_____________
(1993).
In this case petitioner's separate crimes involved
separate acts, different victims, and occurred on widely
separated dates. Petitioner had ample opportunity between
crimes to change direction. Accordingly, his convictions do
not arise from a "single scheme" as defined in Pacheco and
_______
Adetiba. We need not decide how a more expansive definition
_______
might affect this case, because petitioner offers no
persuasive reason for deviating from our own longstanding
interpretation and the majority of recent decisions.
The order of the Board of Immigration Appeals is
affirmed.
________
-5-