## Facts

- John Winston Ono Lennon, a British national, pleaded guilty in the United Kingdom in 1968 to possession of cannabis resin and was fined.
- Lennon and Yoko Ono entered the United States in 1971; their authorized nonimmigrant stay later expired.
- The government initiated deportation proceedings; Lennon sought to regularize status through an employment-based (third-preference) visa petition, which was approved.
- In deportation proceedings, the immigration judge granted Ono’s application for permanent residence but denied Lennon’s adjustment of status.
- The denial rested on the conclusion that Lennon was excludable under INA § 212(a)(23), which covered aliens “convicted of” a law relating to the “illicit possession of … marihuana,” based on the UK conviction.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, treating the UK “cannabis resin” conviction as a conviction for “illicit possession of marihuana” within § 212(a)(23).
- Lennon petitioned the Second Circuit for review of the BIA order.

## Issues

1. Whether Lennon’s 1968 UK conviction for possession of cannabis resin qualified as a conviction for “illicit possession of marihuana” under INA § 212(a)(23), making him excludable and thus ineligible for adjustment of status.
2. Whether § 212(a)(23) could be applied to a foreign conviction absent a clear showing that the foreign offense fits the statute’s precise terminology and scope.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit granted the petition for review and reversed the BIA.
- The court held that Lennon’s UK conviction did not fall within INA § 212(a)(23)’s ground of excludability for conviction of a law relating to the illicit possession of marihuana.
- Because the statutory excludability ground was not established, the deportation order resting on that ground could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Deportation and related eligibility determinations often turn on strict statutory construction; courts will not extend an excludability ground beyond its clear terms.
- When the government relies on a foreign conviction as an INA predicate, it must show that the conviction matches the specific statutory category Congress used; general similarity to a covered offense is insufficient.
- “Marihuana” in an INA excludability provision must be applied according to the statute’s defined scope and context; administrative interpretation cannot expand the provision to reach convictions not clearly within it.
- Even in an area of broad congressional authority, agencies must satisfy clear statutory predicates for removal consequences, and reviewing courts may reject interpretations that stretch the statutory language.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit rejected the agency’s attempt to treat Lennon’s UK cannabis-resin conviction as a conviction for “illicit possession of marihuana” under INA § 212(a)(23), reversing the BIA and eliminating that statutory bar to his adjustment of status.


Lennon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 527 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1975)