Matter of Alfredo Diaz-Garcia

May 212012
 

In this case, the government unlawfully removed the respondent before the removal order was administratively final, i.e., while the case was on direct appeal to the Board. The regulations provide that a removal order shall not be executed during the period for filing an appeal to the Board (unless appeal is waived) or while the appeal is pending. The regulations also provide that the departure of a respondent from the U.S. while a direct appeal is pending constitutes a withdrawal of the appeal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.4. DHS argued that even its removal of the respondent “in error” is a departure that strips the Board of jurisdiction over the appeal. The Board rejected that argument and found, “Fundamental fairness dictates that an unlawful act by the DHS should not serve to deprive us of jurisdiction to review an alien’s appeal.”

On the merits of the appeal, the Board held that a conviction for being an “accomplice” to an aggravated felony offense makes an alien removable for an aggravated felony if the conviction is for aiding and abetting the principal offender. The respondent in this case was convicted under an Arkansas statute that defined accomplice more broadly to include “a person who (1) solicits another to commit an offense, (2) aids another in the commission of the offense, or (3) fails to prevent the commission of the offense, so the Board held it was not categorically an aggravated felony. The reviewable record of conviction, however, made it clear the respondent assisted the principal at the scene of the crime. The conviction thus satisfied the modified categorical analysis.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3751.pdf.

Marco Antonio Robles-Urrea v. Holder

Apr 262012
 

The Ninth Circuit rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ published opinion in this case, Matter of Robles-Urrea, 24 I&N Dec. 22 (BIA 2006), and held that misprision of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. The Ninth Circuit found the Board’s analysis was conclusory and flawed, so it did not defer to the Board’s decision.

Misprision of a felony requires knowledge of the commission of a felony and concealment of that felony and not making it known to the authorities. The Board found this was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), but the Ninth held it failed to meaningfully address one of the key requirements for a CIMT: that the offense be inherently base, vile, or depraved.

The Ninth Circuit held the fact that misprision requires concealment does not satisfy the requirement of baseness, vileness, or depravity. This is the case because misprision does not require the specific intent to conceal or obstruct justice. It is enough to know of the crime and do something that conceals it–even if concealment of the crime is not intended.

Although the Ninth Circuit held that misprision does not categorically involve moral turpitude, it also held that it could involve it in some cases. Thus, the Ninth Circuit remanded for the Board to determine in the first instance whether Robles-Urrea’s conviction necessarily rested on facts that involved moral turpitude.

The most interesting thing about the remand, though, is that by indicating that the Board would have to look only to the narrow set of documents that form the record of conviction, the Ninth implicitly rejected the third step of Matter of Silva-Trevino, which authorizes inquiry beyond the record of conviction. This is a surprisingly beneficial application of Aguila Montes de Oca.

Read the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/04/23/06-71935.pdf.

M-W-

Apr 112012
 

The Board held that a second degree murder conviction under a Michigan statute that did not require intent to kill is categorically an aggravated felony “murder” conviction, 8 USC 1101(a)(43)(A). The noncitizen killed two persons in an automobile collision where he was driving under the influence of alcohol. He pled no contest to second degree murder in violation of section 750.317 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

The Board first found that 8 USC 1101(a)(43)(A) defines murder in the generic sense, so it looked to the law of the majority of states and to the federal definition of murder. It determined these defined murder to include “depraved heart” murder where there was no specific intent to kill, but there was extremely reckless conduct carrying a high likelihood of death or serious bodily injury. The Michigan conviction here was that type of murder, so the Board found it fit the aggravated felony definition.

The Board disregarded the Supreme Court’s decision in Leocal because that case concerned whether DUI was a crime of violence, which is a separate aggravated felony offense.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3746.pdf.

Panagis Vartelas v. Holder

Apr 052012
 

The Supreme Court held that a permanent resident who pled guilty to a crime involving moral turpitude before the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 still benefits from the Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Fleuti, which provides he would not be considered to be “seeking entry” after a innocent, casual, and brief trip abroad. If the resident is not seeking entry, then he is not subject to numerous additional criminal and noncriminal grounds for removal.

IIRAIRA created a new rule that returning residents are considered to be seeking admission upon return from abroad if they have committed an offense that makes them inadmissible. The Supreme Court held that rule is not retroactive because Congress did not explicitly make it retroactive and it creates a new disability (the noncitizen’s inability in this case to travel to Greece briefly to visit his ill parents without being subject to removal upon return). It is thus another application of Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 263 (1994).

Notably, the Supreme Court held that explicit reliance on prior law by the individual is not required to avoid retroactive application. The majority of the Court also rejected the dissent’s argument that the noncitizen’s own travel after IIRAIRA is what triggered his removal proceedings and he could have avoided those problems by not traveling.

Vartelas is not a big change for those of us in the Ninth Circuit or Fourth Circuit, since they already had found that the new definition of when a permanent resident would be seeking admission was not retroactive for noncitizens who pled guilty before IIRAIRA. Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F. 3d 872 (CA9 2007); Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F. 3d 383 (CA4 2004).

Read the decision at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1211.pdf.

Matter of Roderick B. Lanferman

Mar 132012
 

The Second Circuit remanded the removal order in Lanferman to the Board for an opinion on whether (A) a criminal offense must have discrete subsections or clauses to be divisible (thus triggering the modified categorical approach to determining removability or ineligibility for relief from removal) or (B) a criminal offense is divisible regardless of the structure if–based on the elements of the offense–some but not all violations give rise to removability or ineligibility for relief. The Board held that the second broader approach applied.

The decision is entirely academic, though, because the New York menacing statute at issue, N.Y. Penal Law § 120.14(1), is divisible under either approach as to whether it is a deportable firearms offense pursuant to INA 237(a)(2)(C). Section 120.14(1) provides that a person is guilty of menacing if he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying any one of a series of deadly weapons or instruments, including but not limited to firearms. Since the various weapons are specifically identified in the statute and separated by commas, the offense has discrete clauses that would seem to satisfy the narrower approach. It thus is unclear why the Second Circuit thought a remand was necessary.

Most significant for those of us practicing in the Ninth Circuit is the Board’s vague and contradictory endorsement of the Ninth’s decision in Aguila Montes de Oca. Lanferman’s holding clearly requires that divisibility be determined “based on the elements of the offense.” However, the Board also cites Aguila’s “necessarily found” analysis to support its holding. The “necessarily found” analysis permits the immigration authorities to use non-elements in determining removability under the modified categorical approach. Thus, per Aguila, a menacing statute that did not have use of a firearm as an element would still constitute a removable offense if a firearm necessarily was used to commit the menacing. If the Board wanted to endorse this approach, though, why does it seem to consciously use the term “element” throughout the Lanferman opinion?? I welcome your thoughts.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3744.pdf.

Avinesh Anand Rohit v. Holder

Mar 012012
 

The Ninth Circuit held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 647(b) for soliciting an act of prostitution is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. (The opening paragraph of the decision is misleading, since the body of the opinion makes clear the petitioner is challenging whether he is deportable for two crimes involving moral turpitude–not the denial of voluntary departure.)

No published Board decision holds that soliciting a prostitute is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), but the panel relied on a 61 year-old decision that found the underlying act of prostitution is a CIMT, Matter of W., 4 I&N Dec. 401, 401-02 (CO 1951). (The Ninth Circuit mistakenly identified it as a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, but it actually is a Central Office decision.) The court also relied on a 46 year-old decision holding that renting a room for prostitution is a CIMT. Lambert, 11 I&N Dec. 340, 342 (BIA 1965). The panel found it could not distinguish solicitation from either of those offenses.

The reliance on hoary old cases like these is troublesome, particularly for a definition that is dependent on contemporary mores. Doubtless the adjudicators who decided the cited cases in 1951 and 1965 would consider most of what is on network television today to be morally turpitudinous. Certainly views on prostitution have evolved–from an emphasis on morality to an emphasis on protecting against exploitive conditions.

More significantly, it is hard to say that adult prostitution is a crime involving moral turpitude when it is legal and regulated in so many developed countries, including Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and several other European countries. Apparently these countries do not view the profession as intrinsically evil as is generally the case with crimes involving moral turpitude. Indeed, there is no U.S. federal law that generally prohibits prostitution and it is legal in some counties in Nevada. How can something be legal in one state (not to mention other highly developed countries) yet be morally turpitudinous? The panel decision and the ancient cases it cited do not grapple with that question.

Read the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/28/10-70091.pdf.

Lakhwinder Latter-Singh v. Holder

Feb 292012
 

The Ninth Circuit held that a conviction for California Penal Code § 422 categorically is a crime involving moral turpitude. It reached this conclusion because (1) the conviction requires threats of death or great bodily injury, and actual intentional infliction of death or GBI would involve moral turpitude; (2) the statute also requires the threat to be of a nature that reasonably places the victim in sustained fear; and (3) a § 422 conviction requires the specific intent by the perpetrator that the victim take the statement as a threat, and the court deferred to the Board’s judgment that this mens rea is a significant factor.

The outcome in this case is not surprising, but I note that the Ninth Circuit did not cite former Attorney General Mukasey’s precedential definition of a crime involving moral turpitude in Matter of Silva-Trevino as a “reprehensible act” accompanied by a scienter of at least recklessness. Instead, like other recent Ninth Circuit cases, it defines crimes involving moral turpitude with reference to older definitions (here, the redundant “(1) is vile, base, or depraved and (2) violates accepted moral standards”). It seems everybody recognizes Silva-Trevino deserves no respect…

Read the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/17/08-71277.pdf.

Akio Kawashima v. Holder

Feb 292012
 

The Supreme Court held in this case that the aggravated felony definition at 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) (an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000″) encompasses tax offenses. It reached this conclusion despite a separate provision of the statute that designates only certain tax offenses as aggravated felonies: § 1101(a)(43)(M)(ii) (an offense that “is described in section 7201 of title 26 (relating to tax evasion) in which the revenue loss to the Government exceeds $10,000″).

The Court’s primary justification for why its interpretation did not render clause (ii) superfluous was a hypothetical that even the government conceded had never arisen in any tax prosecution: evasion of tax payment without fraud or deceit. In other words, a taxpayer who files a truthful return but puts the money beyond the IRS’s reach. Since the tax offense listed in clause (ii) covers this scenario (as well as evasion that involves fraud or deceit), the Court concluded that clause (ii) covers some offenses not covered by the fraud or deceit offense in clause (i).

Justice Ginsberg’s dissent points out how ridiculous it is to attribute this intention to Congress when the government has never prosecuted anyone for filing a truthful return and then evading payment. Instead, she attributes to Congress the sensible intent of only making the most serious tax offense, 26 U.S.C. § 7201, an aggravated felony. And in all of the known prosecutions, that tax offense has involved fraud or deceit. Thus, it makes no sense for Congress to create two provisions side-by-side and have one of them be essentially meaningless. Instead, clause (ii), which specifically addresses the most serious tax offense that causes loss of revenue to the government of more than $10,000, should be interpreted to exclude tax offenses from the fraud and deceit offenses covered by clause (ii). But only two justices agreed with Justice Ginsberg’s analysis, so that is not the law.

Read the decision at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-577.pdf.

Matter of Wilmer Rodrigo Castro Rodriguez

Feb 262012
 

The Board confirmed that distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration is not an aggravated felony, placed the burden of proving that on the respondent, and held the parties may resort to evidence outside the record of conviction to prove whether the amount is “small” and whether the distribution was gratuitous.

A state conviction is an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(B) for drug trafficking if it would be punishable as a felony under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Distribution of marijuana is a felony under the CSA, except where the defendant proves as an affirmative defense it involved a “small amount of marihuana for no remuneration,” in which case it is a federal misdemeanor. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(4). In states where the penal statute does not provide a similar defense, the Board held an alien put in removal proceedings on the basis of a marijuana distribution conviction can prove the exception to avoid the aggravated felony definition.

The Board also clarified procedural aspects of the exception. It held the exception is of a “‘circumstance-specific’ nature,” so the parties can use evidence outside the record of conviction to prove or rebut the requirements for the exception. Further, the Board put the burden on the respondent to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the applicability of the exception since it is an affirmative defense under the criminal statute.

The Board declined, however, to set a bright line rule on what amount of marijuana should be considered “small.” It recognized that a useful guidepost was the exception from deportability for a single offense of simple possession for personal use of 30 grams or less of marijuana. It found, however, that amounts of less than 30 grams would not be considered small in some situations, such as in a prison.

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3741.pdf.

Ricardo A. Prudencio v. Holder

Jan 312012
 

This Fourth Circuit case rejects the Attorney General’s third step in Matter of Silva-Trevino, finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is not ambiguous on the procedure to determine whether a crime involved moral turpitude. The court recognized that INA section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) makes a noncitizen deportable only if he has a “conviction” for a crime involving moral turpitude, not for any conviction that may have followed an alleged act of moral turpitude. In other words, the noncitizen must actually plead to, or be found guilty of, an act of moral turpitude to be convicted of it and to thus be deportable.

The court found that the parallel inadmissibility section of the INA, section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), supported its interpretation. Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), unlike section 237(a)(2)(A)(i), is not limited to convictions; a noncitizen also may be inadmissible if he admits to committing a crime involving moral turpitude (or the essential elements of one). The AG in Silva-Trevino had relied on the “admits having committed” language in the inadmissibility ground to extend the moral turpitude inquiry beyond the record of conviction, but the court pointed out that this case and Silva-Trevino involved convictions (not admissions, nor inadmissibility). Whatever the procedure for admissions to crimes involving moral turpitude, it is not relevant for convictions. Of course, I don’t see how the admits having committed language authorizes review of police reports or witness declarations either, since 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) specifically refers to admissions by the alien.

The court also rejected the AG’s reliance on the word “involving” to broaden the scope of the inquiry, since “crime involving moral turpitude” is a unitary term of art that has more than 100 years of prior history–none of it authorizing the procedure in Silva-Trevino.

Finally, the court noted that the agency retains discretion to determine whether an offense involves “moral turpitude,” which the courts have long found to be a notoriously ambiguous phrase. This is a subtle distinction. Moral turpitude may be ambiguous, but the statute unambiguously requires that the noncitizen be convicted of it–i.e., that the act of moral turpitude be admitted by the noncitizen, or found by the court or jury, in the record of conviction. It does not authorize the agency to transform any conviction into a crime involving moral turpitude by using police reports, witness testimony, or other evidence that was not incorporated into the factual basis for the plea or finding of guilt.

Read the decision at http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/102382.P.pdf.

 Older Entries

Terms of Use

Use of this website, immigrantpleas.com, and all pages under this domain, requires that you agree to the following conditions and terms of use: (1) use of this website does not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Scott A. Mossman or the Law Office of Scott A. Mossman; (2) consult with an attorney before making any legal decision; (3) nothing on this website is, or should be construed as, legal advice, since an attorney can provide legal advice only after consulting with you about the individual facts of your case; (4) Scott A. Mossman and the Law Office of Scott A. Mossman have no control over, and are not responsible for, the content of webpages hyperlinked to or from immigrantpleas.com but not sharing the same domain name (for example, webpages operated by government agencies or newspapers); (5) Scott A. Mossman and the Law Office of Scott A. Mossman shall be held harmless for any damages arising out of the use of this website or arising out of reliance on information contained in this website (which reliance would be contrary to these terms of use); (6) nothing in this website constitutes a warranty, guarantee, prediction of success, or the terms of a contract.