Skip to content

Category: Deportability / Inadmissibility Grounds

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that unlawful sex with a minor aged 16 or 17 is an aggravated felony, even if the penal statute does not require lack of consent, if the offense requires as an element that the defendant be three or more years older than the victim.  It therefore held that a conviction for California Penal Code section 261.5(c) is an aggravated felony.  In reaching this conclusion (in a case arising in the Sixth Circuit), the Board stated its disagreement with the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Board stated its disagreement with Estrada-Espinoza, but its opinion failed to address the statutory construction argument that led the eleven circuit court judges to unanimously hold that California Penal Code § 261.5(c) is not an aggravated felony.  Getting eleven judges to agree on anything is difficult, but it is even harder when the case involves an immigrant charged with a sex offense (although it may have helped that the defendant and victim in Estrada-Espinoza were a boyfriend and girlfriend living together with the consent of both sets of parents).  The statutory construction argument that compelled the Ninth Circuit was that the aggravated felony of "sexual abuse of a minor," which is not defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, should be drawn from the federal criminal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" at 18 U.S.C. § 2243.  That federal criminal definition penalizes knowingly having sex with a minor under the age of 16 where there is a 4 year age differential.  It does not penalize consensual sex with a sixteen or seventeen-year-old, regardless of the age differential.  The Ninth Circuit found that since Congress has already supplied this definition for criminal purposes, it is the one that should be used for immigration purposes as well--unless the immigration statute specifies otherwise.  The Ninth Circuit also noted that sixteen is the age of consent in most states, as well as in the Model Penal Code (although some states, like California, set the age of consent at 18).  Thus, it would make no sense to impose the most severe immigration consequences for a conviction of conduct that would not even be criminal for federal purposes or in most states.

Although the Board did not address why it thought it had the authority to fashion a different definition of sexual abuse of a minor than the one enacted by Congress, it did cite social science research that shows an age differential of three or more years created a potentially coercive or exploitative situation that equals abuse.  It then provided examples of exploitative circumstances, such as where a high school teacher has a relationship with a student.  It also voiced its concern that a person may be convicted of Penal Code section 261.5(c) even where the victim is under sixteen and the age differential is substantially more than three years.  But Penal Code 261.5(c) is not the type of deal that a forty-year-old high school teacher would receive where he seduces a fourteen-year-old student.  California has a range of sex offenses, including 261.5(d), that are more likely in that type of egregious situation.

Whether a conviction is an aggravated felony should be determined based on the minimum conduct that has a realistic probability of being prosecuted, not on the worst possible scenario.  That is what the Supreme Court emphasized in Moncrieffe.  And for Penal Code section 261.5(c), there is a realistic probability of a prosecutor charging it in a far more benign situation than posited by the Board.  This is exemplified by Estrada-Espinoza itself, where a fifteen- or sixteen-year-old girlfriend lived with her twenty-year-old boyfriend in the home of his parents with the knowledge and consent of her own parents.  That is hardly a coercive or exploitative situation and it is one that would be entirely legal if they had gotten married (or had lived in another state).  That type of scenario hardly justifies the Board's disregard of Congress's statutory definition of sexual abuse of a minor.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 190KB)

Published on

Attorney General Holder vacated Attorney General Mukasey's 2008 decision to authorize an unprecedented factual inquiry to determine whether a conviction involved moral turpitude.  In doing so, he recognized that five circuit courts of appeal had rejected the reasoning of that decision (while two had deferred to it). He also recognized the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that convictions must be judged by their legal elements, not the alleged facts that led to them.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 154KB)

Published on

The Board held that a conviction for recklessly engaging in deadly conduct in violation of section 22.05(a) of the Texas Penal Code is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.  Section 22.05(a) provides, "A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury."  Recklessness for this purpose means the offender is "aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur.”  The Board held that this conscious disregard to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious bodily injury to another always involves a base act that constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.  It found the offense indistinguishable from the reckless endangerment offense in Matter of Leal, 26 I&N Dec. 20 (BIA 2012), which held that “recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death” is always a crime involving moral turpitude.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 165KB)

Published on

In Ferreira, the Board of Immigration Appeals held that conviction of a state controlled substances offense that, on its face, controls some substances not controlled by the federal Controlled Substances Act (in addition to some that are) establishes deportability unless the respondent establishes a realistic probability that the state would actually prosecute offenses involving the substances not covered by federal law.  This conclusion, however, is now in some doubt following the Supreme Court's later decision in Mellouli v. Lynch.

ICE put Ferreira, a lawful permanent resident, in removal proceedings after his conviction of section 21a-277(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes Annotated in 2010.  It charged he was deportable for a controlled substance offense and aggravated felony because section 21a-277(a) prohibits the sale of various controlled substances.  Ferreira argued ICE could not establish deportability because his conviction record did not specify what substance he sold and at the time section 21a-277(a) covered sale of two opiate derivatives (benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl) not listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act, in addition to many substances that do appear in the federal Controlled Substances Act.

The Board labeled the two non-covered substances "obscure" and held the immigration judge should have conducted fact-finding to determine whether the State of Connecticut would actually prosecute a person for sale of those substances.  It reached this conclusion based on its reading of the Supreme Court's decisions in Moncrieffe and Duenas-Alvarez, which held that the categorical approach was not an invitation to exercise "legal imagination." To defeat a charge of deportability, that precedent requires a the respondent to show that there is a realistic probability that a state would prosecute an offense that does not meet the generic definition.  The Board then asserted

Under that test, for the proceedings to be terminated based on this discrepancy between the Connecticut and Federal schedules, Connecticut must actually prosecute violations of section 21a-277(a) in cases involving benzylfentanyl and thenylfentanyl.

Thus, the Board expected Ferreira to cite an example of a prosecution for one of those substances.

The problem with the Board's approach is that it conflates obscurity with likelihood of prosecution.  Ferreira may not be able to provide an example of a Connecticut prosecution for benzylfentanyl or thenylfentanyl because they are not commonly abused drugs and thus are not commonly sold, particularly in a small state like Connecticut.  That does not mean, though, that Connecticut would not prosecute an offense involving one of those substances if given the chance.  Both substances are explicitly covered by the statute.  In other words, the fact that an offense is uncommon does not mean that a court would have to exercise legal imagination to say that it would be prosecuted.

The Supreme Court seemed to implicitly recognize this issue in its later decision in Mellouli.  Mellouli held that a Kansas conviction under an overbroad controlled substances offense does not establish deportability if the record of conviction does not establish the offense related to a substance covered by the federal Controlled Substances Act.  Mellouli did not address whether there was a realistic probability of Kansas prosecuting the substances that made the Kansas offense overbroad (salvia and jimson weed, which do not appear in the federal schedules).  This is a significant silence, since the Board had just a year earlier held in Ferreira that this must be addressed.  Why didn't the Supreme Court address it?  It did not explain.  It just said (at footnote 8) that the case did not require the Court to decide whether Ferreira applied the categorical approach correctly.

I would argue, though, that it takes no legal imagination to suppose that a state would prosecute an offense involving a controlled substance that is explicitly covered by statute or regulation.  The fact that a state has not yet had the opportunity to prosecute an offense involving the substance does not mean it would not.  This is what distinguishes Ferreira's situation from the concern raised by the Solicitor General in Moncrieffe--that the failure to explicitly exclude antique firearms from a state firearms statute would mean that it would not match the federal firearms definition even if the state does not actually prosecute antique firearms offenses.  Moncrieffe did not say that a state firearms statute that explicitly does cover antique firearms would not match the federal firearms definition merely because the state, perhaps a small one like Connecticut, has not had an opportunity to prosecute an antique firearms case yet.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 114KB)

Published on

The Supreme Court reached the sensible decision in this case that a noncitizen is deportable for a drug paraphernalia conviction only if the government proves the conviction relates to a substance appearing on the federal controlled substances schedules.  This decision provides a valuable plea option for some minor drug cases, at least in states that control substances that do not appear on the federal schedules.

Here, Mellouli was arrested for DUI and at booking his sock was found to contain 4 pills.  At the time, he allegedly admitted they were Adderall and that he did not have a prescription.  In court, Mellouli pleaded guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia (the sock), but the drug that the paraphernalia charge related to was not specified in the charging document or his plea.  The identity of the substance thus was not established by the conviction. This is significant because Kansas law at the time controlled some substances that do not appear in the federal schedules, so simply having a paraphernalia conviction in Kansas did not establish a conviction relating to a federal controlled substance.

Relying on Matter of Martinez Espinoza, 25 I&N Dec. 118 (2009), the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals held that the government did not need to prove that Mellouli's paraphernalia conviction related to Adderall or any other specified controlled substance. It was enough that the sock related to "the drug trade in general."

The Supreme Court disagreed and once again faithfully applied the categorical approach, as it has in a string of recent decisions.  The categorical approach requires that the elements of a conviction necessarily match the elements of a federal generic definition.  If there is no match, then there is no penalty--in this case, no deportability.  The text of the deportability statute here requires that a conviction "relat[e] to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21)."  If the conviction does not necessarily relate to a controlled substance as defined in section 802 of Title 21 (the federal Controlled Substances Act) because state law covers one or more substances not covered by federal law, then the noncitizen is not necessarily deportable.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 150KB)

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the exception to the controlled substance ground of deportability for a "single offense involving possession for one's own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana" is a factual question that may be decided by an immigration judge if the record of conviction is not conclusive. In other words, it is a "circumstance specific" inquiry.  It is not a categorical inquiry, where the only question is whether the legal elements of an offense match a federal definition.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 170KB)

Published on

Rejecting the BIA's approach in E.E. Hernandez, the Ninth Circuit held that a gang enhancement under California Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1) does not transform a conviction into a crime involving moral turpitude if the offense was not one already.

Here, Hernandez-Gonzalez was convicted of possessing a billy club, which generally would not involve moral turpitude because the offense does not involve threatening or hurting anyone, but rather mere possession.  The Board found, in an unpublished decision, that the gang enhancement made Hernandez-Gonzalez's offense a crime involving moral turpitude.  This is consistent with the Board's later published decision in E.E. Hernandez. E.E. Hernandez reasoned that the specific intent to promote street gang activity , which is required for a PC 186.22 enhancement, is always morally turpitudinous because street gang activity is morally turpitudinous.

The Ninth Circuit, however, found that California law permits a gang enhancement where the only street gang activity being promoted is the underlying crime itself, which need not involve moral turpitude.  The Ninth Circuit pointed to California court decisions applying the gang enhancement to weapons offenses where the weapons were discovered during probation or other searches, such as during traffic stops, that did not involve any actual use of the weapon.  The Ninth Circuit held that weapons possession in such circumstances is not a morally turpitudinous.  It is criminal, but it does not involve the type of evil intent required for a crime involving moral turpitude.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that malicious vandalism in violation of California Penal Code section 594(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where it is accompanied by a finding that the offense was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote criminal conduct by gang members, a sentencing enhancement under PC 186.22(d).

First, the Board found that the immigration judge had erred by analyzing the vandalism and the enhancement separately.  Rather, the Board held that they must be considered together as a single offense.  The enhancement requires a specific intent to promote criminal activity by a street gang, so that means an act of malicious vandalism with the enhancement must be done with the specific intent to promote that activity.  What activity?  The Board cited "turf wars and gang violence."  The Board found that gang vandalism promoted that activity.

I would argue, though, that vandalism with a gang enhancement is not a CIMT under the categorical approach if there is a realistic probability that a defendant might be convicted of it for conduct that does not promote turf wars or gang violence.  The Board seems to assume that the only vandalism that comes within the statute is gang graffiti, which obviously stakes out territory and could lead to confrontations.

I would be interested to know if any of my readers could think of a scenario where a person could be convicted of vandalism with a gang enhancement (for the benefit of a gang and to promote criminal activity by the gang) that is not necessarily turpitudinous.  If so, is there a realistic probability of it being prosecuted?  Submit a comment below if you can.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 69KB)

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held in Roberto Roman-Suaste v. Holder that a conviction for California Health and Safety Code section 11359 (possession of marijuana with intent to sell) is categorically an aggravated felony as a drug trafficking offense pursuant to INA § 101(a)(43)(B), 8 USC § 1101(a)(43)(B).

The petitioner had argued under Moncrieffe that there might be situations where a defendant is convicted of HS § 11359 for distribution for insignificant payment or payment for social, medical, or family purposes, which would not be illicit trafficking.  The court disagreed.  It found that any type of distribution for remuneration would be illicit trafficking and thus an aggravated felony under Moncrieffe.

The court further rejected the petitioner's argument that California extends aiding and abetting liability beyond the generic federal definition, an argument that had little chance given the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007).

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

Published on

In an extremely helpful decision for noncitizen defendants, the Ninth Circuit held in Rendon v. Holder that California Penal Code § 459 (burglary) is not an aggravated felony as an attempted theft offense.

A state conviction meets the generic federal definition of an attempted theft offense if it includes the elements of intent to commit a theft offense and an overt act constituting a substantial step towards commission of such an offense. California burglary under section 459 consists of entry into a building, vehicle, or structure with intent to commit theft or any felony.  Thus, it is not necessarily an attempted theft offense because it might involve entering a structure to commit some other crime that is a felony.

Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Descamps, courts within the Ninth Circuit thus would have examined the record of conviction to determine whether it indicated a plea to entry to commit theft.  If so, then the conviction would be an aggravated felony.  Descamps, however, held that such an examination of the record (called a "modified categorical analysis") was possible only where the offense is divisible.  Divisibility means that the statute of conviction specifies multiple alternative crimes, at least one of which meets a federal definition and at least one of which does not.  Multiple alternative crimes means the statute contains multiple alternative elements of functionally separate crimes, not alternative means of committing a single crime.  An element is something a jury must unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt.  On the other hand, a jury need not agree on the means of committing a crime (for example, a jury may not need to agree on the type of weapon used in an assault).

The Ninth Circuit held that "theft or any felony" is not divisible because they are alternative means, not alternative elements.  A jury need not agree on whether the defendant entered a structure with intent to commit theft or any other felony to return a conviction for burglary under PC 459.  Since the offense is not divisible, a reviewing court cannot turn to the record of conviction to determine if the conviction was for entry with intent to commit theft.

California PC 459 therefore can never meet the definition of an attempted theft offense because it is broader than the federal generic definition and the modified categorical analysis cannot be used to narrow the conviction to meet the definition.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, Unknown)

510-835-1115