Aleksandr Yeremin v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7590
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Yeremin, a Russian citizen, lawfully entered the U.S. in 1999.
- In 2004 Yeremin pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic in fraudulent identification documents under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(f), with the underlying offense § 1028(a)(3).
- § 1028(a)(3) criminalizes knowingly possessing five or more identification documents to use or transfer unlawfully.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings asserting Yeremin was removable as having committed a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission and punishable by at least one year.
- An IJ found Yeremin removable for a crime involving moral turpitude and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed and denied reconsideration.
- Yeremin petitioned for review; the court must decide whether § 1028(a)(3) inherently involves moral turpitude and review the BIA’s decision and reconsideration ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1028(a)(3) inherently involve moral turpitude? | Yeremin argues the statute does not necessarily involve fraud or deceit. | Respondent contends the statute inherently involves deception when unlawfully using or transferring multiple IDs. | Yes; conviction under § 1028(a)(3) inherently involves moral turpitude. |
| May the IJ/BIA rely on the indictment when applying the categorical approach? | Yeremin claims reliance on indictment facts outside the plea is improper. | Respondent argues the record of conviction may include indictment context under the categorical approach. | Indictment context may be consulted within the record; permissible under the categorical/modifed-categorical framework. |
| Did Silva-Trevino affect the decision regarding moral turpitude here? | Yeremin argues Silva-Trevino creates an improper retroactive framework. | Respondent contends Silva-Trevino was not the basis of the decision and the Board properly relied on Flores. | Silva-Trevino did not affect the result; the BIA correctly relied on inherent nature of the offense and Flores. |
| Was the BIA’s denial of the motion to reconsider an abuse of discretion? | Yeremin contends the BIA reasserted previously rejected arguments and misapplied law. | Respondent asserts the BIA properly denied reconsideration for lack of new arguments or law. | No abuse of discretion; denial was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Serrato-Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2009) (moral turpitude; categorical approach; fraud/deception elements)
- Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. 2010) (defers to BIA on ambiguous term; applies categorical/modified-categorical framework)
- Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2012) (judicial review of moral turpitude determination; classification framework)
- In re Flores, 17 I. & N. Dec. 225 (BIA 1980) (fraud may be inherent in offense even without explicit fraud language)
- United States v. Montanez, 442 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2006) (limited record-documents approach in modified-categorical analysis)