crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Talks & Media

BIA: Limits when IJ may consider evidence outside record of conviction

In a published decision released last week, the BIA held that an Immigration Judge may not go behind the record of conviction to determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. 465 (BIA 2011) (Cole, Pauley, and Greer). Board member Pauley wrote for the panel.

This case involves an individual who entered without inspection and was later convicted by guilty plea of assault in Texas. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 465. The IJ found that Ahortalejo-Guzman was not eligible for Cancellation of Removal for Non-LPRs because his conviction was a CIMT. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 466.

To reach this determination the IJ, relying on Matter of Silva-Treviño, 24 I&N Dec. 687, 696-704 (A.G. 2008), used statements contained in a police report and the respondent’s removal hearing testimony indicating that the victim of the respondent’s assault was his wife. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 467. Silva-Treviño allows an IJ to “consider evidence beyond the record [of conviction]” “when the record of conviction fails to show whether the alien was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.” Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 467 (quoting Matter of Silva-Treviño, 24 I&N Dec. at 699).

The IJ’s decision to turn to evidence outside the record of conviction was a key analytical maneuver because simple assault is not a CIMT, but assault involving family violence is a CIMT because of the additional aggravating factor of family violence. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 467.  The BIA explained that neither the police report nor the respondent’s testimony were part of the record of conviction. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 467. 

As such, evidence of the victim’s identify was not contained in the record of conviction. Because the record of conviction did not indicate that the assault involved family violence, the BIA held that the record of conviction could not support a finding that the respondent was “convicted” of assault involving family violence as is necessary to be ineligible for Cancellation. INA § 240A(b)(1)(C).

Importantly, the record of conviction—specifically, the judgment and sentence—explicitly stated that the trial court found that the respondent’s offense “‘did not involve family violence.’” Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 468 (quoting the trial court judgment and sentence). Consequently, the BIA determined that “[w]here the record of conviction conclusively shows that a conviction does not involve family violence, the fact that other evidence outside the record of conviction may indicate that the victim was part of the offender’s family does not establish that the offender was convicted on that basis (i.e., that such fact was found beyond a reasonable doubt for purposes of the guilty plea)….” Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 468-69.

This result of this explicit finding by the trial court that the respondent’s offense does not include the critical aggravating factor that would have converted this offense from one not involving moral turpitude to one involving moral turpitude is that Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman might have much more limited reach than would otherwise be true. Many—perhaps most—trial courts do not go out of their way to explicitly include in the record of conviction a statement regarding what they did not find.

As such, the BIA’s decision seems to leave room open for an IJ to turn to documents like the police report that are outside the record of conviction where the record of conviction does not “conclusively” show that a conviction does not involve moral turpitude. Matter of Ahortalejo-Guzman, 25 I&N Dec. at 468. We will have to wait to see how IJs interpret it.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on April 26, 2011 on 8:27 am 3 Comments
Filed Under: Silva-Trevino

Comments

  1. unsubLoow says

    April 26, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    [url=http://onlineavi.ru/musicvideo.php?vid=0f3d995d6%5Dпорно видео аврил лавин смотреть онлайн[/url]

    Reply
  2. Edward Summers says

    April 27, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    While the BIA was correct to deal with the Silvia-Trevino issue, they could have dismissed the case because DV is not a CIMT. Matter of Sejas, 24 I&N Dec. 236 (BIA 2007) (VA DV not categorically a CIMT); Matter of Sanudo, 23 I&N 638 (BIA 2006) (CA DV not categorically a CIMT). Absent evidence of injury, the fact that the victim is a household member does not make it a CIMT.

    Reply
  3. cheap uggs says

    December 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    cheap uggs

    uggs for sale boston

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Mistakes aren’t reviewable, Supreme Court says
  • ICE prosecutorial discretion guidance
  • Supreme Court again considers ICE’s detention powers
  • Troubled contractor gets $180 million to hold young migrants
  • Chronicling Arizona’s Immigration Politics
  • Tracking ICE Surveillance

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.