Skip to content

Category: Relief & Bars to Relief

Published on

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 311.11(a) for possession of child pornography was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(I). It also held that the circumstances surrounding the offense made it a particularly serious crime that barred withholding of removal.

The Board noted that the aggravated felony definition at section 1101(a)(43)(I) covers offenses described in 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4) (punishing knowing possession of visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct) and found that California Penal Code § 311.11(a) was an offense described by the federal statute. The Board did not address, however, the fact that the California law is seemingly broader than the federal offense. The California statute explicitly penalizes simulated sexual conduct, but the federal statute does not. Unless case law has interpreted these statutes to mean essentially the same thing, there is not a categorical match between them.

Absent a categorical match, the Board should have determined whether the modified categorical approach could be used to determine if the record of conviction established a conviction that matched the federal definition. The Board did not do that analysis since it appeared to view the offense as a categorical aggravated felony. This is a potential basis for challenge.

The Board also reviewed the nature of the crime and individual circumstances of the offense and found that it was a particularly serious crime that barred withholding of removal. It agreed that possession of child pornography was a less serious offense than producing or distributing it, but nonetheless found it to be a very serious offense. The Board found that persons who downloaded the material created a demand for its production. It also noted the continuing harm to the child victims that occurs every time someone downloads it. The Board also considered the circumstances of the respondent's offense and placed particular emphasis on the fact that the respondent made multiple downloads of the material.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3736.pdf.

Published on

In a Christmas gift to a couple of my clients, the Supreme Court rejected the Board of Immigration Appeal's statutory comparability test for use of former section 212(c). Since 212(c) refers to inadmissibility, the test provided that the waiver is available for a ground of deportability only if the statutory text is substantially similar to the text of a ground of inadmissibility. The Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision, convincingly demonstrated that the Board's test was untethered to the plain language of 212(c) and that it was arbitrary and capricious. The comparability test is arbitrary and capricious because determining whether a ground of deportability is too broad or too narrow has nothing to do with the immigrant's fitness to remain in the U.S. In other words, the inclusion of too many or too few other crimes in a ground of deportability is irrelevant. The Court therefore held the Board's rule did not survive even the deferential review given to it under Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court noted the Board was free to develop a new rule, but the reasoning behind the Court's decision suggests a rule that focuses on the immigrant's actual conviction. If it would make an immigrant inadmissible, then it should to be waivable under 212(c) even for a charge of deportability. The Court did not actually hold that, but indicated that such a rule would not be irrational. Hopefully, the Board will get the hint.

Read the opinion at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-694.pdf.

Published on

In a decision with rather shoddy reasoning, in this blogger's opinion, the panel held that the noncitizen was barred from withholding of removal under INA 241(b)(3) for conviction of a particularly serious crime.

The offered justification for concluding that the respondent's residential burglary conviction(s) (one, or all three collectively, the opinion does not say) is a particularly serious crime is that California residential burglary is a crime of violence under 18 USC 16(b). As a crime of violence with a sentence to a year or more, a crime would be an aggravated felony, but that does not automatically equate to a particularly serious crime, as the panel acknowledges. Rather, the panel seems to simply equate a crime of violence with a particularly serious crime. It did not cite any authority for this conclusion and this blogger is not aware of any. It did not even discuss this premise in any detail, suggesting that it was an oversight.

The panel held that "residential burglary under California Penal Code § 459 constitutes a crime of violence because it is a felony '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 U.S.C. § 16(b)." This is contrary to the reasoning of a recent en banc Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit in Aguila Montes de Oca recognized that California's burglary statute penalizes entry into a residence with intent to commit theft or any felony even if the entry is licensed or privileged or even at the owner's personal invitation. See People v. Frye, 959 P.2d 183 (Cal. 1998), overruled on other grounds by People v. Doolin, 198 P.3d 11 (Cal. 2009). For example, a servant who enters his master's house with the intent to appropriate the family silver while at work commits a residential burglary under California law. Likewise the firefighter who enters a burning building with the intent to appropriate valuables while fighting a fire. Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that California burglary is not categorically a burglary under the generic federal definition, which requires an unlawful or unprivileged entry.

Whether a California burglary meets the generic federal definition is admittedly a different question than whether the crime involves a substantial risk that (violent) physical force will be used in the course of committing the crime. And the Lopez-Cardona panel distinguished Aguila on this basis. However, the servant and firefighter examples of licensed or privileged entries are precisely the types of situations where a California burglary would not by its nature involve a substantial risk of the use of physical force being used in the course of the crime. Another example, courtesy of the ILRC, shows it even more clearly: a person commits a California burglary when he enters a home at the owner's invitation with the intent to fraudulently sell worthless life insurance. That type of theft or felony does not carry an inherent risk of violent physical force being used in the course of the crime. So, it is not categorically a crime of violence (although that still might be established under the modified categorical approach, particularly post-Aguila).

Finally, the decision notably failed to even cite the Ninth Circuit's recent tour-de-force decision by another panel on the particularly serious crime bar to withholding--Delgado v. Holder. Just another indication that this decision was not carefully vetted.

Read the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/11/18/09-71661.pdf

Published on

The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of relief from removal for lack of good moral character The immigration judge and BIA found the applicant lacked good moral character because he had 7 or 8 DUI convictions spanning 23 years, including one that resulted in an 8 month prison sentence immediately before he was put in removal proceedings. He also continued to drive without a license even after he was put in proceedings.

The applicant was seeking registry, a form of relief for persons who have continuously resided in the U.S. since before 1972 and who have good moral character and no disqualifying acts. The court found that the immigration judge properly considered past conduct to determine the applicant's current character, even though registry does not require good moral character for a specified period of time.

Given the egregious facts of this case, the outcome was not surprising. The opinion is significant only because the Ninth Circuit found jurisdiction to review the good moral character finding at all. The Act prohibits judicial review of discretionary decisions specified to be in the authority of the Attorney General. The ultimate decision to grant registry is specified to be in the AG's discretion, but the underlying decision regarding whether good moral character exists is not. Thus, the court found it could review that determination.

Read the decision at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/11/07/06-71680.pdf

Published on

The Supreme Court granted cert to review the Ninth Circuit's line of precedent that imputes the residence of parents to their minor children for purposes of the 7 years required for LPR cancellation of removal.  The two cases are consolidated.

The dockets are available at:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1542.htm

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-1543.htm

Published on

The Ninth Circuit held that the deadline for special motions to reopen proceedings to apply for 212(c) relief under St. Cyr was a constitutionally sound procedural rule.

Luna filed late and had argued that the deadline “irrationally disallows any alien not made aware of the time limitation from seeking a reopening.” The Ninth Circuit noted, though, that the rule was published in the Federal Register and that persons are presumed to know the law.

Further, the Ninth Circuit rejected Luna's argument for tolling of the deadline because the record did not show due diligence. It left open the possibility of tolling under other circumstances, though.

Read the opinion at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/19/08-71086.pdf.

Published on

The en banc Ninth Circuit found, as the government conceded, that it had jurisdiction to review the determination of whether a crime is particularly serious for asylum and withholding of removal purposes. The Supreme Court's decision in Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 827, 837 (2010), compelled this result because Congress did not explicitly set out the Attorney General's discretionary authority in the text of the statute. The Ninth Circuit overruled its contrary precedent in Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th Cir. 2001). It further held that the BIA had the authority to determine whether crimes were particularly serious on a case by case basis.

Delgado had three DUI convictions that the immigration judge held were particularly serious crimes, both individually and collectively. The BIA affirmed with no independent analysis, but did not expressly adopt the IJ's decision or review it for abuse of discretion. Thus, the Ninth could not determine the reasoning behind the BIA's decision and remanded for explication. The court noted the BIA could have found that one or more of the convictions could have been a particularly serious crime individually, they could collectively be a particularly serious crime, or the last of the three could be a particularly serious crime in light of the priors.

Judge Reinhardt concurred, but argued that the BIA would abuse its discretion if it found a run-of-the-mill DUI to constitute a particularly serious crime that barred asylum and withholding of removal. Under current law, a DUI does not even constitute a criminal ground of inadmissibility or deportability (although it does raise the issue of inadmissibility for having a mental disorder and an associated behavior that poses a risk to the public safety), so barring protection for a person who faces a risk of persecution or death on that basis doesn't make sense. Judge Reinhardt noted that even if a DUI did not constitute a categorical bar, the agency still would have the authority to deny asylum based on the DUI in the exercise of discretion--which would better allow the adjudicator to weigh the seriousness of the crime against the reasons for granting relief.

Judge Reinhardt's concurrence also maintained that the BIA would err if it analyzed the convictions collectively or if it found the last to be particularly serious based on the priors. The statutory text indicates that a crime's seriousness should be assessed separately.

Read the opinion at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/08/19/03-74442.pdf

Published on

The Board held that grant of an INA 212(h) waiver for an offense listed under section 212(a)(2) would not remove the bar to section 240A(b) cancellation of removal for a non-permanent resident who has a conviction for a 212(a)(2) offense.

The Board reached this conclusion based on the statutory language of 240A(b), which requires that the noncitizen “has not been convicted of an offense under section 212(a)(2).” The Board determined that this language referred to actual convictions, not to whether an applicant was "inadmissible" for such a conviction. In contrast, other portions of the Act (including VAWA cancellation) refer to "inadmissibility" or "deportability." Since 212(h) waives only inadmissibility, but does not affect the existence of the conviction, it does not eliminate a conviction for purposes of eligibility for cancellation.

Read the decision at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3722.pdf

Published on

The Board held that, if the seven year period of continuous residence stops for 240A(a) cancellation of removal, it does not restart again based merely on a departure from and reentry to the U.S.  A key fact in this case, however, is that the conviction that stopped Nelson's period of continuous residence also made him inadmissible at the time of his reentry to the U.S.  There also was no claim that he obtained a waiver of that inadmissibility.  The Board reserved deciding whether the result would have been the same if he had been readmitted with a waiver.  The Board also attached some significance to the fact that the conviction was charged as a basis for removability (in addition to other grounds of removability), although it did not explain the exact relevance of this fact.

Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3704.pdf

510-835-1115