Skip to content

Category: Categorical Analysis

Published on

In this case, the Ninth Circuit provided an important interpretation of the "necessarily rested" limitation in last year's en banc decision in Aguila Montes de Oca. It first, unsurprisingly, held that a conviction for sexual battery under California Penal Code section 243.4(a) is not categorically an aggravated felony for sexual abuse of a minor. Obviously, PC 243.4(a) may be committed against an adult. More importantly, though, it found the conviction was not for sexual abuse of a minor under the modified categorical approach either, despite an allegation in the charging document that the victim was a minor.

Under the modified categorical approach, a court may review record of conviction documents to determine whether an overbroad offense has been narrowed to match a generic federal aggravated definition. Aguila Montes de Oca held that alleged facts in a charging document, or other evidence of the prosecution's theory of the offense, may be used if the eventual conviction "necessarily rested" on them.

In this case, the charging document alleged the victim's date of birth, which would make her a minor at the time of the offense. Sanchez-Avalos pled no contest to the offense and was later put in removal proceedings upon return from a trip to Mexico. The immigration judge found him inadmissible for a crime involving moral turpitude and denied his application for a 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility. The Board dismissed his appeal of the decision, holding that the conviction was an aggravated felony for sexual abuse of a minor that disqualified him from 212(h).

The Ninth Circuit, however, held that the conviction could not have "necessarily rested" on the date of birth allegation in the charging document because the victim's age is irrelevant to the sexual battery charge. It could have obtained a conviction at trial even if the birth date contained a typo and the victim was actually an adult. Thus, this conviction is not an aggravated felony under the modified categorical analysis.

Finally, this decision requires a shout out to the attorney for the immigrant, rock star criminal immigration attorney Michael Mehr.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that an abstract of judgment for a California Health and Safety Code section 11377(a) conviction that indicates a plea to a criminal count that identifies the substance as a regulated substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (here, methamphetamine) satisfies the government's burden to prove removability for conviction of a controlled substance offense. It held this was the case even where the abstract itself does not identify the substance (here, counsel for the immigrant obtained amendment of the abstract to remove its specification of the controlled substance).

The panel further disregarded the fact that Cabantac's plea was pursuant to West/Alford because the plea transcript identified the substance as methamphetamine.

The lesson? Correct an abstract of judgment early in the removal proceedings if necessary, but that may not be enough if competent immigration counsel was not involved at the time of the criminal proceedings. (A shameless plug to consult with an attorney such as myself!)

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

This decision interprets and applies the Ninth Circuit's 2011 decision in Aguila Montes de Oca to the following question: In determining the facts "necessarily found" by the trier of fact for a particular criminal conviction, may an immigration judge import facts from the factual basis for a separate conviction in the same criminal proceeding? The court said no over Judge Bybee's vigorous dissent.

The permanent resident in this case was serving in the U.S. Marines when he used a government computer to access pornography, at least some of which involved minors. He was court martialed and pled guilty to two counts. The first, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, was for “violat[ing] or fail[ing] to obey any lawful general order or regulation.” The specific order or regulation at issue was Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5500.7-R, which provides for use of a government computer for authorized purposes only, which does not include accessing pornography (of any type). The second offense Aguilar-Turcios pled guilty to was bringing discredit upon the armed forces in violation of UCMJ Article 134 by “wrongfully and knowingly possess[ing] visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, which conduct was prejudicial to good order and discipline of the armed forces.” In other words, the Article 92 charge referenced only accessing pornographic websites, while the Article 134 charge specified accessing child pornography. When the judge took Aguilar-Turcios' guilty pleas for the two offenses, the judge questioned him about the factual basis for the pleas. Regarding the Article 92 offense, the judge asked Aguilar-Turcios only to confirm visiting pornographic websites, while the judge asked about pornography involving minors for the Article 134 plea.

Aguilar-Turcios was put in removal proceedings after completion of his sentence and bad-conduct discharge from the Marines. DHS alleged that both of the convictions amounted to aggravated felonies under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 101(a)(43)(I) as convictions for “an offense described in section 2251, 2251A, or 2252 of Title 18 (relating to child pornography).” Applying the Ninth Circuit's then-valid missing element rule, the immigration judge found the Article 92 conviction was an aggravated felony and the Article 134 conviction was not and ordered removal. The permanent resident appealed the finding that the Article 92 conviction was an aggravated felony, but DHS unwisely chose not to appeal the finding that the Article 134 conviction was not. While the case was before the Ninth Circuit, the court overruled its missing element rule and issued en banc decision in Aguila Montes de Oca.

Aguila expanded what may be considered as part of the "conviction" when determining whether a particular conviction matches the generic definition of a deportable offense in the INA, i.e., conducting the modified categorical analysis. Previously, the court had held that if a person has been convicted of an offense that is missing an element of the generic definition under the INA, then there never could be a match between the two that would establish deportability. For example, a person convicted of assault could not be deportable for a firearms offense if the assault statute did not include a firearm as at least one means of committing the assault--even if a person in fact did use a firearm to commit the assault. Aguila overruled that precedent and held that a court may consider more than the elements of the statute to determine whether a match exists. It held that a court could also consider any facts necessarily found by the trier of fact in support of the conviction. “If the defendant could not have been convicted of the offense of conviction unless the trier of fact found the facts that satisfy the elements of the generic crime, then the factfinder necessarily found the elements of the generic crime."

In Aguila-Turcios then, the government (and Judge Bybee in dissent) argued that facts found for the Article 134 conviction could be considered in determining whether the Article 92 conviction amounted to an aggravated felony (because DHS waived its opportunity to argue that the Article 134 conviction also was an aggravated felony). This would have been a significant enlargement of Aguila, since Aguila specifies that the facts must have been necessary to support the conviction. How could the alleged fact of depiction of minors be necessary to the Article 92 charge when the government did not include it in the allegations and Aguila-Turcios did not admit it? He only needed to admit accessing pornography in general, and that is all he did admit for that offense.

Fortunately, the majority of the panel did not agree with the government and did not use the unsympathetic facts of this case to create bad law. The court held that for a conviction to be an aggravated felony under the INA, the factual basis for that particular conviction must satisfy the aggravated felony definition. Borrowing from another conviction doesn't cut it.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that California Penal Code section 69, attempting to deter or resisting an executive officer, is not categorically a crime of violence for aggravated felony purposes. On its face, CPC 69 would seem to be a crime of violence since it may be violated in two ways: (1) by attempting through threats or violence to deter or prevent an officer from performing a duty imposed by law; or (2) by resisting by force or violence an officer in the performance of his or her duty. California jury instructions, however, provide that "violence" in this respect is synonymous with "force" and both "mean any [unlawful] application of physical force against the person of another, even though it causes no pain or bodily harm or leaves no mark and even though only the feelings of such person are injured by the act."

The Supreme Court has held that under the first test for determining if an offense is a "crime of violence", 18 USC 16(a) ("an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another") an offense must be an active, violent crime. The Ninth Circuit has previously held that a California battery that requires only an offensive, noninjurious touching does not necessary meet that standard. CPC 69 requires only the same type of battery, so it is not necessarily a crime of violence either.

Although the offense is not a crime of violence under the first test for a crime of violence, the alternative test encompasses "any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." 18 USC 16(b). The Supreme Court has held that this test, like section 16(a), requires a level of intent of at least recklessness. Resisting an officer under the second prong of CPC 69 is a general intent crime that requires only the intent to resist with at least de minimus force. It does not require intentional use of violent force or reckless disregard of a substantial risk that violent force may be used (by the offender). In other words, a person may be convicted of CPC 69 for nonviolently resisting under circumstances where there is no substantial risk of that resulting in violent force. The court contrasted an Arizona statute that had been interpreted by the Arizona courts to exclude de minimus resistance and which required a substantial risk of injury to the peace officer. CPC 69 thus is not categorically a crime of violence.

The court remanded the case to allow the government to file additional conviction documents to establish that this particular conviction was for a crime of violence. When the case was before the agency, the Ninth Circuit's previous "missing element" rule was in effect and the government may not have had cause to submit documents for the so-called modified categorical analysis. Aguila Montes de Oca overruled the missing element rule after the agency decided the case, so the court found the government should have the opportunity to further contest the case under Aguila. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that Aguila's new rule should be applied only prospectively.

Finally, I would note that the fantastic decision in this case was surely the result of great lawyering by super lawyer Holly Cooper of the UC Davis Immigration Law Clinic.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

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.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

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.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 58KB)

Published on

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.

Published on

Disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Malta-Espinoza v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 1080 (9th 2007), the BIA held in this Fourth Circuit case that a conviction for harassing conduct in violation of California Penal Code § 646.9 is categorically a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) (thus making it an aggravated felony with a sentence to 365 days or more). The Board therefore reaffirmed its decision in Matter of Malta, 23 I&N Dec. 656
(BIA 2004) in jurisdictions other than the Ninth Circuit. The decision is weak, however, because it fails to meaningfully address the primary rationale for Malta-Espinoza.

The primary rationale for finding that PC § 646.9 is not categorically a crime of violence is that it can be committed by long-distance harassment. Malta-Espinoza cited published California cases where the convictions were for sending letters and pictures through the mail. However, a crime of violence under § 16(b) requires "a substantial risk that [violent] physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." How could violent physical force be used in the course of mailing a letter?

The Board's cursory answer is that sometimes a violent physical encounter follows long-distance harassment. It cites statistics to back up this assertion. I have no doubt that sometimes violence follows long-distance harassment, but that is beside the point. Under well-established California law, the offense would be complete upon the mailing of the harassing letters (even if the sender was incarcerated and even if the recipient is out of the country). That is an offense, and the sender could be immediately prosecuted for it. And, of course, there is no way that sending a letter in-and-of itself carries a substantial risk that violent physical force could be used in committing THAT offense. PC § 646.9 thus does not categorically involve a substantial risk that violent physical force will be used.

If the sender of a harassing letter later shows up at the victim's doorstep to engage in more harassment (as in the example cited by the BIA), then that is a separate offense that likely would involve a substantial risk of the use of violent physical force to commit the offense. But that does not categorically establish that all PC § 646.9 convictions involve conduct that carries a substantial risk of violent physical force. Some may, some clearly would not, which is why the Board should have resorted to the modified categorical approach to determine if the offense underlying this particular conviction involved a substantial risk.

The Fourth Circuit may have a chance to review the Board's decision. Hopefully, it will engage in a more careful analysis. The consequences of the decision are severe. Since it determined the conviction was an aggravated felony, the Board found the respondent ineligible for relief from removal. He thus will lose his green card and be removed and probably will never be able to return to the U.S. All without review of the record of conviction to determine the actual conduct that he pled guilty to.

Finally, note that this decision, and the Malta decision that preceded it, concern only "harassing" conduct in violation of PC § 646.9. The statute also penalizes "following," which neither decision addressed. Given the rationale of this decision, however, it is hard to see how following--even from a great distance--would not be found to be a crime of violence.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3738.pdf.

Published on

Yours truly attended the en banc oral argument today in Young v. Holder. Two judges led the questioning, Chief Judge Kozinski and Judge Kleinfeld. Judge Kozinski's questions suggested agreement with the government's argument that a plea to a charging document that alleges commission of an offense in the conjunctive (e.g., transportation, offer to sell, and sale) establishes admission to violating the crime in all of the various alleged ways of committing the offense.

Judge Kleinfeld (a former criminal defense attorney) repeatedly cited the historical practice of charging in the conjunctive and proving or pleading in the disjunctive. In other words, he recognized that prosecutors charge all of the various ways of committing an offense under the statute even where the defendant only committed it in one way. He thus strongly suggested that a plea to a complaint in the conjunctive established a plea to only one of the offenses.

On the other hand, questions by Judge Kleinfeld and other judges indicated that they might overrule the decision in Sandoval Lua. Sandoval Lua held that an inconclusive record of conviction was sufficient to establish eligibility for relief from removal. Thus, where a defendant is convicted of an offense that could be an aggravated felony or could not be an aggravated felony, Sandoval Lua had held that an ambiguous record was sufficient to avoid ineligibility for cancellation of removal (which is not available for persons convicted of aggravated felonies).

I had predicted the possibility of Sandoval Lua being overruled in a previous blog post, but certainly hope that I am not proved right. The loss of Sandoval Lua is a troubling possibility, since it is not always possible to obtain crystal clear records of conviction--particularly for convictions from years or even decades in the past.

Watch the oral argument at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video_subpage.php?pk_vid=0000006171

Published on

The Ninth Circuit overruled its previous precedent in United States v. Navidad-Marcos, 367 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2004), and held that a California abstract of judgment may be used to establish whether a respondent in removal proceedings has been convicted of first or second degree burglary. It relied on the en banc decision in United States v. Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 699 (9th Cir. 2008), which had held that a California minute order could be used for the same purpose. The court found that an abstract of judgment are contemporaneously prepared judicial record of the plea and sentence based on language from a California Supreme Court case. As a contemporaneous record that the defendant could review and challenge, it held it was within the reviewable record of conviction.

The abstract may be contemporaneously prepared in some cases, but often it is prepared months after the plea in cases where sentencing does not occur immediately. Nor is it really a record of the basis for the plea, but rather is primarily a sentencing document. It therefore is not comparable to a minute order from a change of plea hearing.

The more surprising holding of Kwong, however, was that California first degree burglary is a crime of violence under 18 USC 16(b) as a felony that involves a substantial risk that violent physical force will be used against the person or property of another in committing it. Although prior Ninth Circuit precedent held the same, I say surprising because the recent en banc decision in Aguila Montes de Oca v. Holder recognized that California burglary does not necessarily require a trespassory entry. It recognized that it would include a fireman called to a burning building who enters to fight the fire and also to misappropriate valuables inside or a servant who enters with his master's home with the intent to steal the silver. These types entries are not trespassory and thus are not the types of situations where there is no substantial risk that the offender will use violent physical force to commit the crime.

Read the opinion at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/12/07/04-72167.pdf

510-835-1115