A-7975451
Decided by Board August 24, 1951
Crime involving moral turpitude — Attempt to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce — 18 U.S.C.A. 1992.
An attempt to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce in violation of section 1992, rev. title 18 U.S.C.A. is an offense involving moral turpitude.
CHARGES:
Warrant: Act of 1924 — No immigration visa.
Act of 1917 — Crime within five years, to wit: Attempt to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce.
BEFORE THE BOARD
Discussion: Respondent, age 50, is a native and citizen of Mexico. He last entered the United States on or about October 15, 1945, at Brownsville, Tex. At that time, he intended to remain permanently in the United States and to seek employment. He was not in possession of an immigration visa for permanent residence. He testified that he was not inspected by United States immigration officers at the time of his last entry and managed to evade inspection because he feared he would not be permitted to enter the United States. At the time of his hearing before a hearing officer, respondent was imprisoned at the United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Ind. The hearing officer recommended that the respondent be deported from the United States on the charges contained in the warrant of arrest. This recommendation was approved by the Assistant Commissioner and respondent appeals to this Board.
Respondent was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, to 1 year and a day for the crime of having attempted to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce under section 1992, rev. title 18, U.S.C.A.
Respondent is married and is the father of two United States born infant children. He stated that he wished to be permitted to remain in the United States in order to care for his children. He admitted that at the time he was taken into custody for the offense for which he is presently serving sentence, he had been unemployed for 6 months. At the time of his hearing, his children were being taken care of by State welfare organizations.
The only question in this case is whether or not the crime of attempting to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce is a crime involving moral turpitude. The Assistant Commissioner assumed without comment that it is such a crime. The section of the statute under which respondent was sentenced reads as follows:
Section 1992, rev. title 18, U.S.C.A.:
Whoever willfully derails, disables, or wrecks any train, engine, motor unit, or car used, operated, or employed in interstate or foreign commerce by any railroad; or
Whoever willfully sets fire to, or places any explosive substance on or near, or undermines any tunnel, bridge, viaduct, trestle, track signal * * * or appurtenance used in the operation of any such railroad in interstate or foreign commerce, or otherwise makes any such tunnel, bridge, viaduct, trestle, track, etc., * * * unworkable, unusable, or hazardous to work or use, with the intent to derail, disable, or wreck a train, engine, motor unit, or car used, operated or employed in interstate or foreign commerce; or
Whoever willfully attempts to do any of the aforesaid acts or things —
Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The statute further provides for the death penalty, or life imprisonment in the discretion of the jury, or the court where the accused has entered a plea of guilty, if in the commission of the crime, death has resulted to any person.
There is no question but that the crime for which respondent was sentenced is a crime involving moral turpitude within the meaning of the immigration laws. Intent is an element in the statute. It is in the criminal intent that moral turpitude inheres. The indictment expressly stated that the crime was committed with intent. The crime of attempting to wreck a train operated in interstate commerce is inherently illegal, immoral, and dangerous to the public interest.
Respondent cannot now deny that he committed the crime. Regardless of his reasons for pleading guilty, that plea is on the record, and we must accept it. He has been found guilty in a Federal court, and we have no authority under the law to retry the question of guilt.
Respondent is deportable on the charges stated in the warrant of arrest.
Order: The appeal is dismissed.