crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

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

9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected Matter of Silva-Treviño, 24 I&N Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), in which Attorney General Mukasey revamped the method by which immigration courts determine whether a particular conviction involves moral turpitude. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. (9th Cir. May 17, 2013) (Fletcher, Hug, and Kleinfeld, JJ.). Judge Fletcher wrote the panel’s opinion; Judge Kleinfeld concurred.

This case involved an LPR who arrived in the United States at the age of 10 days. Eventually he was convicted of marijuana possession in 2003 and endangerment in 2007, both in Arizona. DHS charged him as removable for having been convicted of two or more CIMTs under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii). Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 4. He conceded that the marijuana possession offense was a CIMT, but argued that endangerment was not. The IJ and BIA disagreed with him. Both relied on police reports that described conduct Olivas-Motta allegedly engaged in claiming that Silva-Treviño authorized consideration of these documents. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 5.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed that the IJ or BIA could examine documents outside the record of conviction as Silva-Treviño allows. Despite the fact that what constitutes a CIMT is “famously ambiguous,” the court explained, nothing “permits an IJ to use a different procedure than it uses for other crimes in determining whether an alien has been convicted of such a crime.” Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 11-12. In other words, just because it’s often unclear whether an offense is a “crime involving moral turpitude” doesn’t mean it’s any more difficult to figure out whether a person was “convicted” of a CIMT versus “convicted” of an aggravated felony. This matters because INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) requires a finding that a person was “convicted” of multiple CIMTs to be deportable. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 13-14. As such, the Attorney General could not reinterpret the method by which immigration courts determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude; they have to use the same categorical approach and modified categorical approach that the Supreme Court announced in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005).

Furthermore, the court concluded that the “involving moral turpitude” language doesn’t just “describe a circumstance of the crime,” as the government argued. Rather, “involving moral turpitude” must be an element of an offense in order for it to constitute a CIMT. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 19. To drive home this point, the court explained the logical result of interpreting “involving moral turpitude” as being independent from the term “crime.” In the court’s words, “If one eliminates the phrase ‘involving moral turpitude’ from the phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude,’ there is no separately defined crime. There is only the single word ‘crime,’ covering the entire universe of crime. The words ‘involving moral turpitude’ are thus integral to the description of the generic crime of CIMT and constitute an element of that generic crime.” Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 21.

The end result is that the court concluded that the method immigration courts are to use to determine what a crime involves moral turpitude is not ambiguous. The statutory text of INA § 237 clearly requires a focus on the conviction not any underlying conduct that the noncitizen may have committed but for which she wasn’t convicted. Under the administrative deference framework announced in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the Attorney General had no choice but to do as Congress mandated. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 6, 23.

Consequently, the court joined the Third (Jean-Louis v. Attorney General, Fourth (Prudencio v. Holder), and Eleventh Circuits (Sanchez-Fajardo v. Attorney General) in rejecting Silva-Treviño. This furthers the circuit split that already existed given that the Seventh (Mata-Guerrero v. Holder) and Eighth Circuits have adopted conflicting positions. Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459, slip op. at 23.

Like crImmigration.com and want to help spread the word to other crImmigrationistas about what’s going on here? Then nominate it for the ABA Journal’s list of the 100 best law blogs. I was proud to be included in last year’s list and inclusion boosted the blog’s readership. It would be great to do the same this year. Nominations are due August 9 and must be submitted via the ABA Journal’s web site.

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

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on July 11, 2013 on 9:00 am 21 Comments
Filed Under: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, crime involving moral turpitude, multiple CIMTs, Silva-Trevino

Comments

  1. oakleys on sale says

    July 21, 2013 at 11:50 pm

    oakleys on sale

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  2. Tiffany UK says

    July 24, 2013 at 3:14 am

    Tiffany UK

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  3. Ralph Lauren Sale says

    July 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Ralph Lauren Sale

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  4. Nike Free Run 5.0 says

    July 25, 2013 at 3:21 am

    Nike Free Run 5.0

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  5. oakley sunglasses canada says

    July 25, 2013 at 4:28 am

    oakley sunglasses canada

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  6. maillot de foot says

    July 25, 2013 at 8:09 am

    maillot de foot

    Many thanks so significantly for this! I have not been this thrilled by a site submit for fairly some time! Youa??ve received it, whatever that implies in running a blog. In any case, You are certainly somebody that has some thing to say that people need to listen to.

    Reply
  7. Air Max Shoes says

    July 25, 2013 at 10:29 am

    Air Max Shoes

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  8. wwww.bikerjewelryonline.org says

    July 25, 2013 at 10:57 am

    wwww.bikerjewelryonline.org

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  9. Hackett London Polo Shirts Are Great For Any Occasion says

    July 25, 2013 at 11:26 am

    Hackett London Polo Shirts Are Great For Any Occasion

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  10. Mont Blanc UK says

    July 25, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Mont Blanc UK

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  11. Oakley Sunglasses Sale UK says

    July 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Oakley Sunglasses Sale UK

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  12. Hollister Sale says

    July 25, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Hollister Sale

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  13. Michael Kors Outlet says

    July 26, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    Michael Kors Outlet

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  14. Vibram Five Fingers Sale says

    July 26, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Vibram Five Fingers Sale

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  15. www.parkinsonmaritimes.ca/media/airmaxcanada.php says

    July 26, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    http://www.parkinsonmaritimes.ca/media/airmaxcanada.php

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  16. Fake Oakley Sunglasses says

    July 26, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    Fake Oakley Sunglasses

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  17. Lululemon Online says

    July 26, 2013 at 8:46 pm

    Lululemon Online

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  18. ¥³©`¥Á éLØ”²¼ says

    July 27, 2013 at 8:29 am

    ¥³©`¥Á éLØ”²¼

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  19. Nike Free Australia says

    July 27, 2013 at 12:31 pm

    Nike Free Australia

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  20. Air Max 2013 says

    July 27, 2013 at 1:35 pm

    Air Max 2013

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    Reply
  21. Nike Free Run Australia says

    July 29, 2013 at 4:40 am

    Nike Free Run Australia

    crImmigration.com: 9 Cir: Rejects Silva-Treviño; deepens circuit split

    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

  • Biden’s Migration Policy Options
  • Migrating to Prison, one year later
  • With Biden returning to White House, private prison stock falls
  • New York Review of Books
  • Justice Dept pushes Supreme Court to Imperil Families
  • Fund Immigrant Defense, Promote Justice

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.