## Facts

- A 22-year-old native and citizen of Cuba arrived in the United States in April 1980 during the Mariel boatlift and was paroled into the country.
- In February 1983, he pleaded guilty in Florida state court to two counts of robbery with a firearm, two counts of attempted robbery with a firearm, second-degree grand theft, and accessory after the fact.
- He received concurrent 15-year sentences for the robbery and attempted robbery counts and concurrent 5-year sentences for the remaining counts, to run concurrently; he was incarcerated during exclusion proceedings.
- The government charged him as excludable for (1) a crime involving moral turpitude and (2) lack of a valid immigrant visa; he conceded excludability under the visa ground and did not contest the moral-turpitude charge.
- He sought asylum and withholding of deportation, asserting fear of persecution in Cuba, including due to his U.S. criminal convictions.
- The immigration judge found him excludable, denied asylum and withholding, and ordered him excluded and deported, concluding he was barred from withholding because he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime and was a danger to the community.
- He appealed the denial of asylum and withholding to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the withholding bar for an alien “having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime” who “constitutes a danger to the community” requires two separate findings or a single combined determination.
2. Whether, once a conviction is classified as a particularly serious crime, background evidence (including offense circumstances and post-conviction considerations) is relevant to statutory eligibility for withholding.
3. Whether armed robbery and attempted armed robbery with a firearm constitute a particularly serious crime that renders the applicant ineligible for withholding.

## Decision

- The Board dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of withholding and asylum.
- The Board held that a finding of conviction for a particularly serious crime inherently establishes that the alien is a danger to the community; separate, independent danger findings are not required.
- The Board treated armed robbery as an inherently particularly serious crime and concluded the applicant’s firearm robbery convictions triggered the withholding bar.
- The Board held that where the alien is statutorily barred due to conviction for an inherently particularly serious crime, background evidence, including detailed offense circumstances, is not relevant to statutory eligibility for withholding.

## Legal Principles

- Under the withholding bar, once an alien has been finally convicted of a particularly serious crime, it necessarily follows that the alien constitutes a danger to the community.
- The inquiry focuses on the serious nature of the crime of conviction, not on a separate assessment of the likelihood of future misconduct.
- Certain violent offenses, including armed robbery, may be treated as inherently particularly serious, rendering an applicant statutorily ineligible for withholding.
- When statutory ineligibility is established by conviction for an inherently particularly serious crime, mitigating background evidence and detailed offense circumstances do not affect eligibility for withholding.

## Conclusion

The Board held that the applicant’s firearm robbery convictions were inherently particularly serious crimes, which by operation of the withholding statute established danger to the community and categorically barred withholding, making additional background evidence irrelevant to eligibility and requiring dismissal of the appeal.


Matter of Carballe, 19 I. & N. Dec. 357 (B.I.A. 1986)