797 F.3d 524
8th Cir.2015Background
- Angel Miranda-Romero, a Mexican national present without admission, was placed in removal proceedings after a traffic arrest in Missouri.
- He sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b but had a 1993 California conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 472 (forgery).
- The immigration judge and the BIA concluded § 472 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and carries possible imprisonment of one year or more, rendering him ineligible for cancellation under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2).
- Miranda-Romero conceded the potential one-year punishment but argued § 472 criminalizes some conduct lacking the specific intent to defraud, so it is not categorically a CIMT.
- California courts (including People v. Terrill and People v. Castellanos) have long interpreted § 472 to require intent to defraud as an element of the offense.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo and upheld the BIA’s determination that § 472 convictions necessarily include specific intent to defraud and therefore are categorically CIMTs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 472 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because it requires specific intent to defraud | Miranda-Romero: § 472’s wording shows some subsections (e.g., possession/false making) do not require intent to defraud, so the statute is not categorically a CIMT | BIA/Respondent: California case law uniformly treats § 472 as requiring intent to defraud; thus every conviction under § 472 involves a CIMT | The court held § 472 necessarily requires specific intent to defraud and is categorically a CIMT; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Avendano v. Holder, 770 F.3d 731 (8th Cir.) (explaining ineligibility for cancellation when conviction is a CIMT punishable by one year or more)
- Franklin v. INS, 72 F.3d 571 (8th Cir.) (noting phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ left to administrative and judicial interpretation)
- Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810 (8th Cir.) (adopting BIA’s definition of CIMT as acts with a vicious motive or corrupt mind)
- Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir.) (explaining offenses requiring fraud as an element are categorically CIMTs)
- Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733 (8th Cir.) (jurisdictional principle: courts may review legal questions and constitutional claims despite discretionary-denial jurisdictional limits)
- People v. Terrill, 65 P. 303 (Cal. 1901) (early California Supreme Court holding § 472 applies to acts done “with intent to defraud”)
- People v. Castellanos, 2 Cal. Rptr. 3d 544 (Cal. Ct. App.) (California appellate court treating specific intent to defraud as required for § 472 possession/forgery offenses)