Aleksandr Yeremin v. Eric Holder, Jr., 707 F.3d 616

Yeremin, a Russian citizen, entered the U.S. lawfully in 1999 and pleaded guilty in 2004 to a single §1028(f) conspiracy count related to trafficking fraudulent identification documents.
The underlying offense §1028(a)(3) criminalizes knowingly possessing with intent to use or transfer five or more ID documents unlawfully.
DHS charged Yeremin as removable for a crime involving moral turpitude (CMT) within five years of admission and for an aggravated felony, leading to IJ and BIA determinations of removability.
The IJ held Yeremin’s offense inherently involved fraud, and the BIA affirmed; Yeremin challenged in separate petitions.
The issue on review is whether Yeremin’s conviction under §1028(a)(3) qualifies as a CMT and whether the BIA properly implemented the cited authorities, including Silva-Trevino, in denials of reconsideration.
The court ultimately denies Yeremin’s petitions for review, affirming removable status under CMT grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §1028(a)(3) convicts of moral turpitude	Yeremin argues the statute does not necessarily involve fraud.	Yeremin’s position is that the offense inherently involves deceit because it requires intent to use or transfer unlawfully.	Conviction inherently involves deceit; qualifies as CMT.
Whether the IJ/BIA properly used the record of conviction and indictment	Yeremin argues the IJ relied on indictment details not admitted in plea.	The court may rely on the record of conviction and the statute to determine the offense.	The IJ/BIA properly considered the statute and record; no reversible error.
Role of Silva-Trevino in CMT determination	Yeremin argues Silva-Trevino’s extra-record approach was improper retroactive reliance.	BIA’s reliance on Silva-Trevino was limited and not central to the outcome.	Silva-Trevino not fatal to decision; deference upheld for the cited reasoning.
Standard of review and reconsideration denial	Yeremin contends the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.	BIA acted within applicable standards and did not abuse discretion.	BIA did not abuse discretion; denial of reconsideration affirmed.

Serrato-Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2009) (defines de novo vs. Chevron/deference for moral turpitude analysis)
Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2012) (Moral turpitude review is a question of law with limited jurisdiction)
Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2010) ( Ballpark for applying categorical vs. modified-categorical approaches)
Montanez v. United States, 442 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2006) (illustrates use of record of conviction in modified-categorical approach)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (establishes general framework for categorical approach)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits materials admissible under modified-categorical approach)
Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) (recognizes fraud/deception as moral turpitude component)
Lagunas-Salgado v. Holder, 584 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2009) (supports that some §1028(a) subsections inherently involve deception)