Skip to content

Category: BIA

Published on

The Board held that a conviction for unlawful animal fighting under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

First, the Board reiterated that to involve moral turpitude, a crime must have two essential elements—a culpable mental state and reprehensible conduct. The Board found that 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) meets both requirements: (1) the statute requires that the offender “knowingly” sponsor or exhibit an animal for fighting, and a mens rea of “knowingly” meets the scienter requirement; and (2) the conduct involved is reprehensible because it involves the intentional infliction of often-fatal harm on animals purely for entertainment. In reaching this conclusion, the Board noted that amendments and expansions to the law since its enactment in 1976 reflect an increasing national consensus against animal fighting, as do similar laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Finally, the Board noted that the respondent had not shown a realistic probability that the statute has been applied to conduct not involving moral turpitude.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 26KB)

Published on

The Board held that California Penal Code section 314(1) (every person who willfully and lewdly exposes his person or private parts in any public place or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed is guilty of a misdemeanor) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Unlike other Board cases that held simple indecent exposure was not a CIMT, the Board held that indecent exposure coupled with the element of lewd intent made PC 314(1) categorically a CIMT.

In reaching that conclusion, the Board rejected the contrary interpretation of the Ninth Circuit in Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) that PC 314(1) is not categorically a CIMT. It invoked authority to interpret the CIMT definition pursuant to Brand-X and held that the interpretation of lewdness for PC 314(1) by California courts would always involve moral turpitude. It rejected an argument that nude dancing at a bar might be prosecuted under PC 314(1), and that such dancing would not be a CIMT, as unrealistic and contrary to the California Supreme Court's decision in Morris v. Municipal Court, 652 P.2d 51, 59 n.13 (Cal. 1982).

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 39KB)

Published on

This case clarifies the law regarding the particularly serious crime (PSC) bar to asylum and withholding of removal for cases arising in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Alaka v. Attorney General, 456 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2006), the Third Circuit held that an offense must be an aggravated felony to be a PSC for purposes of withholding of removal. However, the Board reached the opposite conclusion the following year in Matter of N-A-M-, 24 I&N Dec. 336 (BIA 2007). Four federal circuit courts, including the Ninth, have deferred to N-A-M- after finding ambiguity in the statutory language of the PSC-bar to withholding.

In this case, the Board considered the question whether it would continue to follow Alaka in cases arising within the Third Circuit. The answer is no: the Board concluded that because the Third Circuit did not hold in Alaka that the statutory language in section 241(b)(3)(B) is ambiguous, the circuit court is required to defer to the Board’s interpretation of the statute in N-A-M-. Thus, in all circuits, an individual need not have been convicted of an aggravated felony to be subject to the PSC-bars for asylum and withholding of removal.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 29KB)

Published on

The respondent in this case was a long-time LPR indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of bulk cash smuggling.  Post-indictment but pre-conviction, he returned to the United States from a trip abroad and was paroled into the country for prosecution.  He was convicted the following year.

DHS then initiated removal proceedings, charging him with inadmissibility under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.  The IJ terminated the proceedings, reasoning that the DHS had not met its burden of establishing that the respondent was seeking admission because, at the time he sought entry into the US, he had not yet been convicted of the crime.

The Board reversed.  Under section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Act, an LPR shall only be considered an applicant for admission if he falls within one of six enumerated categories, including aliens who have committed an offense under section 212(a)(2).  The Board held that because the respondent in this case was paroled into the country for prosecution, DHS could rely on his subsequent conviction to sustain its burden of proving that he was properly charged as an arriving alien.  In reaching this conclusion the Board reasoned that an application for admission is a continuing application and admissibility is determined at the time the application is considered before the IJ, not at the time the alien first presents himself for inspection.  Thus, following this case, when DHS is confronted with a returning LPR who is suspected of criminal activity but has not yet been convicted, it may parole him into the country for purposes of prosecution and rely on the results of the prosecution for purposes of applying section 101(a)(13)(C) in future removal proceedings.

Board member Patricia Cole dissented from the opinion, reasoning that the plain language of section 101(a)(13)(C) demands that the determination of whether a returning LPR is seeking admission must be made at the time he presents himself at a port of entry based on the information then available to DHS.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 76KB)

Published on

This case is a welcome clarification of the exception to section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), the controlled-substance ground of removability, where the respondent’s conviction is for “a single offense involving possession for one’s own use of thirty grams or less of marijuana.”

The respondent in this case was convicted in 2010 of simple possession of less than 10 grams of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia (specifically, a plastic baggie in which the marijuana was contained) in violation of Arizona law. In bond proceedings, the DHS asserted that the convictions made the respondent removable under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) and thus subject to mandatory detention under section 236(c)(1)(B). The Immigration Judge disagreed, finding that the respondent was not removable under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) because her convictions fell under the simple-possession exception.

On appeal of the custody determination, the Board rejected the government’s argument that the respondent could not benefit from the exception to section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) because she had been convicted of two separate state offenses. The Board held that the term “single offense” in section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) describes the totality of an individual’s acts on a single occasion, rather than a generic crime, and thus calls for the “circumstance-specific” approach adopted by the Supreme Court in Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009). The Board held that the exception therefore applies to an individual convicted of more than one statutory offense so long as each offense arose from a single act of simple marijuana possession. The Board further held that the individual need not even have been convicted of simple marijuana possession to qualify for the exception: the exception applies to a conviction, such as possession of drug paraphernalia, if the acts that led to it were closely related to simple possession or ingestion of 30 grams or less of marijuana.

Lastly, the Board rejected the government’s argument that the respondent’s record of conviction left open the possibility that the marijuana baggie was possessed for purposes of sale, not possession. The Board reaffirmed prior case law holding that, to establish removability under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i), the government bears the burden of proving the conviction in question does not fall under the simple-possession exception and that an inconclusive record will not satisfy the burden.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 27KB)

Published on

This case supplies a definition for the phrase “crime of stalking” under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i). Although the phrase is not defined by the Act, the Board held that it should be given its “ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning,” which is: (1) conduct that was engaged in on more than a single occasion, (2) which was directed at a specific individual, (3) with intent to cause that individual or a member of his or her immediate family to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death. (The Board left open the question whether, to qualify as a crime of stalking, there must also be a fourth requirement that the conduct actually caused the victim to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death.)

Applying this definition, the Board held that California Penal Code § 646.9 is a crime of stalking under § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) because it requires proof that the defendant “willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow[ed] or willfully and maliciously harasse[d] another person and . . . ma[de] a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her own safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family,” thereby satisfying all three elements of the generic crime.

Notably, the Board commented in a footnote that at least one California Court of Appeal decision holds that the term “safety” in Penal Code § 646.9 includes “endangerment or hazard” in addition to physical safety. This leaves open potential arguments that the statute is not a categorical match with INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i). Nevertheless, the Board noted that in this particular case the respondent had not argued, nor was there any evidence, that the fear experienced by his victim was anything other than a fear of physical safety.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 35KB)

Published on

In assessing whether an applicant is barred from asylum or withholding removal because there are serious reasons to believe that the applicant has committed a serious nonpolitical crime before arriving in the U.S., the Board held that the seriousness of the criminal acts should be balanced against their political aspect.

E-A- participated in an attempt to discredit an opposition political party by committing acts of vandalism, assault, and intimidation, including burning buses and destroying merchandise, during the opposition party's events. The Board held that there was a political character to the activities, but that the attempts to discredit were not entitled to as much weight as actions in direct opposition to a party or government. On the other hand, the Board found the activities to involve serious criminality, particularly the arson of the buses. Even though the applicant testified that no one was hurt, it is dangerous to burn buses in the street after forcing the passengers out. Further, the crimes were directed at civilians, not the applicant's political opponents. The Board concluded that on balance the criminal conduct was disproportionate to its political nature, and thus barred asylum and withholding.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 40KB)

Published on

The Board held that a conviction by a municipal court in Wichita, Kansas, for a violation of a municipal controlled substance ordinance is a conviction for immigration purposes because the proceedings were "genuine criminal proceedings." The respondent was fined and jailed for possession of marijuana in a municipal court. He later was convicted in a state court of a felony for possession of marijuana with a prior municipal court conviction. ICE then initiated removal proceedings, alleging removability for a controlled substance offense and for an aggravated felony. It alleged his possession with a prior conviction was an aggravated felony.

The respondent raised several arguments to attack the validity of the underlying municipal court judgment. The Board rejected the respondent's first argument that the municipal court proceedings were not genuine because there was no absolute right to counsel. Witchita apparently provides a right to appointed counsel only in municipal court cases where there is a possibility of incarceration, but not otherwise. The Board found this was consistent with the constitutional right to counsel for indigent persons, so it did not agree that the proceedings were not genuine. (It is unclear whether he actually had counsel or not, but he would appear to have the right to it because he received a sentence to incarceration for the municipal conviction.)

The respondent further argued that his lack of counsel (or advisement by the judge) deprived him of information about the potentially serious immigration consequences of his municipal court plea. The Board treated that as a collateral attack against the judgment, rather than as an argument that the proceedings were not genuine. As such the Board held that the respondent needed to make the argument to the criminal court, not to the Board. (Again, this argument is curious since he apparently did have a right to counsel.)

The respondent also argued that convictions in the Witchita municipal courts were not genuine because there is no right to jury trial on the charges. However, there is a right to trial de novo before a jury in a state district court if the municipal court finds the defendant guilty. The Board found this right to request a new trial if the defendant is dissatisfied is enough.

Additionally, unlike the Oregon procedures in Matter of Eslamizar, 23 I&N Dec. 684, 688 (BIA 2004), Witchita municipal proceedings require the prosecutor to prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The proceedings thus were genuine by that measure as well.

The impact of this case goes far beyond Witchita convictions, though. The reasoning behind it strongly indicates that California infractions will be considered convictions for immigration purposes as well. There had been some hope that Eslamizar signaled an intent to not treat infractions as convictions, particularly since in California there is no right to appointed counsel for them. Cuellar-Gomez dispels that hope. Further, California requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for infraction convictions, so that argument from Eslamizar does not apply either.

The respondent in Cuellar-Gomez also argued that his municipal conviction could not support ICE's charge of removability under section 237(a)(2)(B)(i) for being "convicted of a violation of . . . any law or regulation of a State . . . relating to a controlled substance." He was convicted under a municipal ordinance, not any law or regulation of a State. The Board rejected that argument because a municipality is a creature of the state, so its laws are laws of the state.

Finally, the Board held that Cuellar-Gomez's conviction was an aggravated felony because it corresponds to a federal felony under the Controlled Substances Act for recidivist possession, 21 U.S.C. § 844(a). As required for a federal recidivism felony, the prior conviction was final and respondent received advance notice of the enhancement for having a prior conviction.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 73KB)

Published on

The Board held that a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad may be treated as an applicant for admission under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(iii), and thus subject to the grounds of inadmissibility, if DHS proves by clear and convincing evidence that he engaged in illegal activity at the port of entry before admission. In this case, the resident allegedly attempted to bring an undocumented juvenile alien into the U.S. in violation of the law.

The Board first held that "illegal activity" clearly includes criminal activity such as alien smuggling. It suggested the language did have some limits and might not include other illegal, noncriminal activity such as torts, breaches of contract, or noncriminal regulatory violations. The resident had not argued, though, that smuggling would not be "illegal activity."

Instead, the resident argued the statute permits treatment of a returning resident as an applicant for admission only if the illegal activity occurred in a foreign country or on the high seas, since a port of entry is on U.S. soil and the statute says “has engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States.” The immigration judge had agreed, but the Board did not. It held a noncitizen is not in the U.S. for immigration purposes until after inspection and admission.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 22KB)

Published on

The Board held that, with a sentence to a year or more, a conviction for California Penal Code § 32 is categorically an aggravated felony for obstruction of justice under INA § 101(a)(43)(S). In doing so, it clarified its previous decision in Matter of Espinoza, 22 I&N Dec. 889 (BIA 1999). The Ninth Circuit had interpreted Espinoza to mean that a conviction involves obstruction of justice only if it involved hindering an ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding. Trung Thanh Hoang v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2011). And a conviction under PC § 32 does not require the existence of an ongoing investigation or proceeding, so the Ninth Circuit's interpretation indicated it was not necessarily an aggravated felony.

The Board asserted that "obstruction of justice" in the aggravated felony definition is an ambiguous term and invoked the Supreme Court's decision in Brand-X to interpret that term despite the Ninth Circuit's decision. It held that an offense relates to obstruction of justice "if it includes the critical element of an affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice." Further, it implicitly held interference with the process of justice could include assisting with escape from arrest.

The Board distinguished Espinoza, where it held misprision in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 was not an obstruction of justice offense, because misprision does not require the person to act with the specific intent to interfere with the process of justice.

All of this points to the more basic problem that the Board has stretched "obstruction of justice" far past its traditional, accepted meaning. The Board asserts the phrase is ambiguous, but is it? Open any law dictionary and it is likely to define the term as interfering with the administration of justice, not as driving a get-away car. And it is not limited to any particular category of crimes, so an accessory after the fact conviction under the Board's definition could be an aggravated felony even where the underlying crime is not.

DOWNLOAD (PDF, 31KB)

510-835-1115