The Ninth Circuit upheld a finding of deportability for conviction of an offense relating to a substance prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act because circumstantial evidence established that a document in the record was the factual basis for the plea and that factual basis established the conviction involved methamphetamine. In the underlying criminal case, Juarez-Alvarado pleaded guilty to Arizona Revised Statute § 13-3407(A)(1), but not as originally charged in the indictment returned against him. He pleaded to count 1 as modified. The Ninth Circuit therefore held that the government could not establish he was deportable by relying on the original indictment. However, the government also presented a document from the court record (lacking a title or date) that purportedly was the factual basis incorporated into the plea. Juarez-Alvarado disputed that it was. The court considered the circumstantial evidence in the record (of page numbering, location of certification stamps, etc.) and found that the document indeed was the "attached description of the statutory elements and factual basis" referenced by the guilty plea. Since that document indicated the conviction was for possession of methamphetamine, the court found it established deportability.
Category: Categorical Analysis
Matter of Martin Chairez-Castrejon
The Board of Immigration Appeals applied the Supreme Court's decisions in Descamps and Moncrieffe to find that the respondent's felony conviction under section 76-10-508.1 of the Utah Code for discharge of a firearm was not an aggravated felony crime of violence, but was a deportable firearms offense.
Section 76-10-508.1(1) has three subsections and it was not clear which the respondent was convicted of. The first, subsection (a), penalizes one who "discharges a firearm in the direction of any person or persons, knowing or having reason to believe that any person may be endangered by the discharge of the firearm." This does not require any particular mental state by the person who discharges the firearm, which means under the Utah Code that it may be done with intent, knowledge, or recklessness.
The Supreme Court held in Leocal that the mental state of recklessness does not satisfy the federal definition of a crime of violence, so the Board held that a violation of section 76-10-508.1(1)(a) is not necessarily an aggravated felony crime of violence. Further, the Board held it could not find the respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach. It determined it could not use the modified categorical approach because the mental states for subsection (a) (intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly) are not divisible because they are not elements of the offense that a jury must unanimously agree upon. In other words, a jury returning a guilty verdict could do so where some members of the jury believe the defendant acted intentionally, while others believe he acted recklessly. Since the offense does not necessarily constitute a crime of violence and it is not divisible, no conviction for section 76-10-508.1(1)(a) would be an aggravated felony crime of violence.
The Board nonetheless found that Chairez-Castrejon was convicted of a firearms offense because it rejected his argument on the antique firearm exception. The federal definition of a firearm excludes certain antique firearms, while the respondent argued that Utah law did not. The Board noted that there was no specific exception for antique firearms under Utah law, but also found that the respondent had not shown Utah actually prosecutes offenses involving antique firearms. In Moncrieffe, the Supreme Court held that an alien who invokes this “antique firearm” argument in order to defeat an aggravated felony charge “would have to demonstrate
that the State actually prosecutes the relevant offense in cases involving antique firearms.” The respondent apparently could not show that here (California, on the other hand, does prosecute cases involving antique firearms). The Board therefore found Chairez-Castrejon deportable, although it remanded for consideration of his cancellation of removal claim because it found his conviction was not an aggravated felony.
Matter of Iris Introcaso
In Matter of Iris Introcaso, the Board held that a petitioner has the burden of proving that he is not ineligible to petition for a relative due to a conviction for a specified offense against a minor under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 ("Adam Walsh Act"). It further held "the language and structure of the Adam Walsh Act invite a circumstance-specific inquiry into both the age of the victim and the conduct underlying the offense." In other words, the inquiry purportedly is not limited to the categorical approach.
The Board justified examining facts outside of the elements of conviction to determine the victim's age because the list of disqualifying convictions includes offenses that are not specific to minors (kidnapping, false imprisonment, solicitation to engage in sexual conduct, etc.). It is hard to argue with that, so I won't.
The rationale for examining non-elements to determine the nature of the conduct underlying the offense, however, is far more dubious. The Board notes that the list of specified offenses against a minor include "criminal sexual conduct involving a minor..." and "any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense against a minor." The Board suggests that this focus on the conduct permits an examination of the alleged facts of the offense, rather than the offense of conviction. In doing so, it disregards the requirement that the petitioner be "convicted of" a specified offense. How can a petitioner be convicted of conduct that is not an element of the conviction? This is precisely the issue addressed in the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps, but the Board did not even attempt to distinguish Descamps and instead focuses myopically on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Nijhawan.
Arguably, though, Board's assertion that an adjudicator can engage in a circumstance-specific inquiry into the conduct underlying the offense is dicta. It is dicta because the Board did not examine facts or circumstances of the offense in this case to determine whether it was a disqualifying offense. It did not need to. The offense was endangering the welfare of children under section 2C:24-4(a) of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated. The Board held that offense is divisible and that the portion the petitioner was convicted of--engages in sexual conduct which would impair or debauch the morals of the child--is a specified offense under the Adam Walsh Act. It reached that conclusion based on the statutory language and petitioner's inability to provide an example that would be outside the scope of the Adam Walsh Act. In other words, it applied the categorical approach--not the circumstance-specific approach.
U.S. v. Jorge Aguilera-Rios
In this illegal reentry decision, the Ninth Circuit held that firearms convictions under state statues that encompass both "antique" and non-antique firearms do not satisfy the federal ground of deportability for conviction of a firearms offense. The defendant here had been removed for conviction under such a statute, so the court found the removal order invalid and reversed the conviction.
The federal definition referenced by the firearms ground of deportability explicitly excludes antique firearms, while former section 12021(c)(1) of the California Penal Code, does not. In other words, there is no complete match between the two definitions and a conviction for the California offense should not categorically trigger deportability. The Ninth Circuit previously had resisted this logic, primarily because the antique firearms exception is an affirmative defense in a federal prosecution. In Moncrieffe, the Supreme Court found, albeit in dicta, that whether it is an affirmative defense or not does not matter. What matters is the congruence between the definitions. An offense meets a federal definition only if all of the conduct penalized by it meets the definition, including the least culpable conduct that there is a "realistic probability" of the state prosecuting. Aguilar-Rios cited cases showing California regularly prosecuted offenses involving antique firearms under PC 12021(c)(1), so the least culpable conduct for a conviction clearly did not meet the federal firearms definition.
Moreover, as in the marijuana statute at issue in Moncrieffe, former California PC 12021(c)(1) was not divisible into alternative, separately defined offenses involving antique or not-antique firearms. Thus, the court held it could not examine the record of conviction to try to determine whether Aguilera-Rios's offense actually involved an antique firearm.
Although this decision concerned a firearms statute that existed before the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 went into effect on January 1, 2012, it should apply equally to offenses under the reorganized statute that do not distinguish between antique and non-antique firearms. This would include current sections 25400(a), 27500, 29800, and 33215 of the Penal code, according to the ILRC.
Finally, I should point out that the panel's decision confusingly states Aguilera-Rios's "conviction is not a categorical match for the federal aggravated felony" definition. This apparently is an error, since the recited facts indicate Aguilera-Rios was only found deportable for conviction of a firearms offense, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(C), not a firearms aggravated felony. This error is not significant, though, since both reference the same federal definition of a firearm.
U.S. v. Edward Lee Sullivan
In this sentencing case, a panel of the Ninth Circuit has once again concocted a way to squirm out of the categorical analysis. The Supreme Court's harsh rebuke just last term in Descamps apparently has had little effect. After reciting the admittedly terrible facts of the case (a parolee pimping out a 14 year-old runaway and using her to produce porn after prior convictions for sex with a minor and conspiracy to pander a minor), Judge Ikuta's opinion announces it is applying the categorical analysis and then utterly subverts it.
The portion of the opinion reviewed here concerns the use of the categorical analysis to determine whether a sentencing enhancement for a prior conviction for sexual abuse of a minor applies. The opinion first notes the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires conviction of either (a) a sexual offense with a minor that is inherently abusive or (b) an offense that involves knowingly engaging in a sexual act with a minor between the ages of 12 and 16 and a 4 year age difference. The opinion then recognizes that Ninth Circuit precedent holds the defendant's prior conviction for California Penal Code section 261.5(d) (unlawful sex with a minor younger than 16 by an adult 21 or older) does not categorically meet this definition (and that by extension his prior conviction for PC 288a(b)(2) does not either). PC 261.5(d) is not inherently abusive because it could involve consensual sex with a minor just one day shy of 16. Nor does it meet the alternative test because the conviction does not require that the defendant know (or that he reasonably should know) the minor is under the age of 16.
No match should mean that the mandatory minimum sentences applied by the district court judge (25 years and 10 years) do not apply, but the panel snatches victory from the jaws of defeat with the magic words "relating to." The panel finds that the sentencing enhancement requires only conviction of an offense "relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual contact with a minor or ward." It explains this "mandates the enhancement for any state offense that stands in some relation, bears upon, or is associated with that generic offense.” Whatever that means, the panel holds it does not require the conviction to have the same elements as the generic definition.
The opinion cites a Ninth Circuit decision, United States v. Sinerius, 504 F.3d 737, 740 (9th Cir. 2007), as support for its holding. The citation, however, is suspect because it pre-dates the Supreme Court's last four decisions on the categorical analysis (Nijhawan, Johnson, Moncrieffe, and Descamps), which all have emphasized the primacy of elements when evaluating whether a conviction meets a federal definition. Moreover, actually reading the Sinerius decision reveals that it does not offer quite as much support as the Sullivan panel asserts. Sinerius does expound on "relating to," but its actual holding does not purport to dispense with a categorical analysis of the elements of the offense. Instead, It simply found that the generic definition of sexual abuse meant more than federal statutory rape, that it also covered sexual offenses with children younger than 14. And then it compared the elements of the statute of conviction to that generic definition. Sinerius does not assert that a conviction can satisfy a federal generic definition even if it is missing an element of the generic definition.
The flawed reasoning of Sullivan unfortunately has potential consequences beyond its application here. For example, a conviction for an offense "relating to" a federal controlled substance makes a noncitizen deportable or inadmissible. Thus, the panel's reasoning could be used to argue a conviction for California Health and Safety Code section 11377(a) "relates to" an offense involving a federally controlled substance even if the conviction actually did not (because some of the substances covered by it are not prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act). This certainly would be news to another Ninth Circuit panel that recently held 11377(a) does not categorically make a noncitizen inadmissible. See Quijada Coronado. Ditto for another panel on a Hawaii controlled substances statute. See Ragasa.
Let's hope the other judges on the Ninth Circuit see this chicanery for what it is.
U.S. v. Arturo Albino-Loe
In this criminal appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld a sentencing enhancement for prior convictions for crimes of violence despite a variance in the availability of an affirmative defense. The district court imposed the enhancement in this illegal reentry case because the defendant had previous California convictions for attempted murder and kidnapping. He had argued California attempt was not a categorical match to the generic definition of a crime of violence because California does not provide for the affirmative defense of voluntary abandonment, while the majority of jurisdictions and the Model Penal Code do.
The court held that Ninth Circuit precedent, e.g., United States v. Velasquez-Bosque, 601 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2010), compelled it to reject Albino-Loe's argument. It found that the Supreme Court's decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) did not undermine that precedent. The court distinguished Moncrieffe because it did not involve an affirmative defense, but rather a sentencing exception that defined whether the offense was a felony or misdemeanor.
U.S. v. Cabrera-Gutierrez
This Ninth Circuit criminal sentencing case is significant for its holding that divisibility must be explicit in the statute, not implied. The defendant had appealed his federal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for traveling in interstate commerce and failing to register with the federal authorities as a sex offender. He was subject to registration because he had a previous Oregon conviction for ORS § 163.425. One of his arguments on appeal was that he should not have received an enhanced sentence as a Tier III offender because ORS § 163.425 is broader than the Tier III generic offense and it is not divisible. The court agreed.
Tier III defines "sexual abuse" as a sexual act accomplished by means of certain types of threat or fear or with a victim who is mentally or physically incapable of consenting. It does not include non-consent due merely to the victim being under the age of consent. A conviction under ORS § 163.425, on the other hand, requires only a sexual act with a person who does not consent. The statute does not specify the types of non-consent that would qualify, but, according to the Oregon Supreme Court, it includes at least actual non-consent and legal incapacity to consent, such as being under the age of 18, mental incapacitation, etc.
The government conceded that ORS § 163.425 is overbroad, but argued it is divisible pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps. It argued the court therefore could look to the conviction documents under the modified categorical approach to find a match to the Tier III definition. It asserted § 163.425 is divisible because Oregon also has a definitional statute at § 163.315, which lists persons who are legally incapable of consenting to sex, including minors, mental defectives, mental incapacitated persons, and physically helpless persons. The Oregon conviction documents included the defendant's guilty plea statement that he had sex with a girl who was legally incapable of consenting because she was intoxicated and 15 years old. Non-consent due to intoxication would meet the Tier III definition, so the government argued the enhanced sentence was proper.
The majority of the panel rejected the government's argument and found ORS § 163.425 is not divisible because it does not explicitly list the alternative types of non-consent. It held the definitional statute at § 163.315 did not make § 163.425 divisible because § 163.425 does not reference § 163.315 or even use the same terminology (§ 163.425 requires non-consent, while § 163.315 defines legal incapacity to consent). In other words, § 163.425 defines non-consent broadly to include all types of non-consent and § 163.315 defines only a sub-group of non-consent--legal incapacity. Since § 163.315 does not provide an exclusive list of alternative elements for § 163.425, it does not make § 163.425 divisible into those elements for purposes of the modified categorical approach.
Judge Callahan partially dissented, finding that ORS § 163.425 is divisible. She noted the Oregon Supreme Court had recognized § 163.425 covers two types of non-consent: actual non-consent and legal incapacity, as defined by § 163.315. She maintained that this (implicitly) made the offense divisible into the alternative elements of: actual non-consent, minority, mental incapacitation, helplessness, etc. Since the defendant's guilty plea thus admitted the "element" of intoxication under this logic, the conviction would satisfy the federal definition under the modified categorical approach.
The majority rejected Judge Callahan's approach because it would be a partial return to the means-based analysis of Aguila-Montes de Oca that the Supreme Court repudiated in Descamps. It held the element was "non-consent" and the "means" were actual non-consent, minority, mental incapacitation, and perhaps others, since § 163.425 did not explicitly define a limited universe of modes of commission. I.e., it is the explicit, limited universe that transforms a means into an element, and that was not present here.
Raul Quijada Coronado v. Holder
The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion finding that the controlled substance schedules referenced by California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) 11377 (as well as 11378 and 11379) are not a categorical match for the federal controlled substance schedules. Specifically, it found khat (Catha Edulis) appears on the California schedules, but that the federal courts have held it is not covered by the federal schedules. Likewise, chorionic gonadotropin (HGC) is listed on the California schedules, but is not listed on the federal ones. That means a conviction under CHSC 11377(a) does not categorically make a noncitizen inadmissible or deportable for a conviction relating to a federal controlled substance.
The respondent had further argued CHSC 11377(a) was not divisible pursuant to Descamps v. United States and thus could never trigger inadmissibility or deportability, regardless of the record of conviction. Unfortunately, the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and held it could conduct a modified categorical analysis to see if the record of conviction establishes the conviction was for a federal controlled substance. The charge in this case alleged only one controlled substance, methamphetamine (obviously a federal controlled substance), and the clerk's docket reflected conviction on the charge, so the court held the government established inadmissibility under the modified categorical approach. It found a clerk's docket for a misdemeanor case was just as reliable as a minute order, which the court previously had held could be used under the modified categorical approach. Of course, clerk's dockets and minute orders often do contain errors, but presumably it found them reliable because a defendant may inspect and correct them if they are not accurate. I say presumably because the court did not explicitly say so here.
The court did remand the case to the Board, however, because it failed to address his pro se claims on appeal that his previous attorney was ineffective and that the immigration judge did not act as a neutral fact-finder, which might have impacted his application for cancellation of removal.
Matter of Jose Juan Chavez-Alvarez
The Board held that an adjustment of status by a respondent who entered the U.S. without inspection was an "admission" and the respondent therefore was deportable for conviction of an aggravated felony "after admission." It disagreed with and distinguished the precedent on 212(h) eligibility, where circuit courts have held an aggravated felony does not disqualify a permanent resident unless he or she was admitted to the U.S. as a permanent resident (not where he or she adjusted to permanent resident status). The Board found it would be absurd to interpret the statute to entirely exempt immigrants who adjusted status from the grounds of deportability, which only apply to persons in and admitted to the U.S.
The Board further found that a sentence enhancement specified in the Manual for Courts-Martial that must be pleaded and proved beyond a reasonable doubt is an "element" that may be examined under the categorical analysis for immigration purposes.
In this case, the Board held a sodomy sentence enhancement for sodomy committed "by force and without the consent of the other person" categorically satisfies the crime of violence aggravated felony definition (if the sentence is to one year or more). It found the conviction satisfied both subsection (a) and subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. 16. It found it satisfied subsection (a) because it held the conviction had as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another. It also found the offense satisfied subsection (b) because sodomy by force, which requires physical force and lack of the victim’s consent for a conviction, by its nature involves a substantial risk that the perpetrator will resort to intentional physical force in the course of committing the crime.
Interestingly, in a portion of the decision not digested by the Board at the beginning of the case, the Board rejected without much analysis the respondent's argument that he did not receive a sentence to one year or more for any single one of his three sodomy convictions. Apparently, he received a sentence to 18 months on the three counts and it was not clear whether this was a single concurrent sentence (i.e., 18 months on each conviction with the period of imprisonment to run at the same time) or three consecutive sentences (say, three sentences to 6 months each). The Board characterized the sentence as a "general sentence" and cited a 66 year-old Board opinion to find it satisfied the crime of violence aggravated felony definition's requirement of a sentence to one year or more. Due to the paucity of the Board's analysis, though, it is hard to know whether the respondent's argument had any merit. This is unfortunate in a published decision.
Finally, the Board rejected respondent's claim to eligibility for a "stand alone" 212(h) waiver. It held 212(h) is not available unless the applicant is an arriving alien seeking to waive a charge of inadmissibility or an applicant to adjust (or readjust) status to permanent residence. See Matter of Rivas, 26 I&N Dec. 130,
132, 134 (BIA 2013).
United States v. Alvaro Gonzalez-Monterroso
In this Sentencing Guidelines case, the Ninth Circuit reviewed case law from the Delaware Supreme Court to determine whether the court had narrowed that state's unusually broad statutory definition of criminal attempt. It did so despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in Descamps reserved the question of whether review of case law to determine the reach of a statute is permitted under the categorical analysis.
The panel's review of the case law of the Delaware Supreme Court revealed that the definition of attempt in that state really is as broad as the statute implies. Delaware law criminalizes attempt where the defendant has committed an act that leaves no reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s intention to commit the crime he or she is charged with attempting to commit. In other words, a person could be convicted of attempt where he or she has taken a step merely in preparation toward committing a crime. This is in contrast to most states and the generic federal definition, which require both intent and a substantial step toward completion. And a "substantial step" occurs under the federal generic definition when a defendant’s "actions 'unequivocally demonstrat[e] that the
crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances.'"
Since the case law merely confirmed the statutory text, the panel did not need to use the case law to decide that the defendant's attempt conviction here was not a categorical match to the federal definition. Nonetheless, Judge Wallace's concurrence opposed even this on judicial restraint grounds. He wrote that the underlying crime attempted in this case (statutory rape) was not a match to the Sentencing Guidelines definition for a forcible sex offense. As it is not a match, an attempt to commit that crime is not a match to the federal definition either. He would have denied the case on that ground.