Armando Ruiz-Lopez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12343
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ruiz-Lopez seeks review of a BIA dismissal of his appeal from an IJ order of removal.
- Removal was based on a CIMT finding for a Washington felony-flight conviction, §46.61.024.
- Ruiz-Lopez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. illegally in 1991 and has a family and business in the community.
- He pleaded guilty in 1997 to felony flight for eluding police, receiving a short sentence and community supervision.
- The 2006 Notice to Appear charged removability under INA §212(a)(6)(A)(i) and §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I); the IJ concluded the offense was a CIMT and ordered removal; the BIA affirmed in 2011, leading to this petition for review.
- The issue is whether the Washington felony-flight statute categorically constitutes a CIMT under the INA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felony flight under Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.024 is a CIMT. | Ruiz-Lopez argues the statute may include non-CIMT offenses (property risk) and thus requires a modified-categorical analysis. | The BIA conducted a categorical analysis and concluded the statute inherently involves moral turpitude due to willful or wanton disregard for life or property. | Yes; the court agrees the statute is a CIMT under the BIA definition. |
| Whether the BIA properly applied the categorical approach without resorting to a modified-categorical analysis. | Some offenses under the statute could be non-CIMT, suggesting a need for modified-categorical analysis. | CIMT classification rests on the statute’s elements and state judicial interpretations; a modified-categorical approach is unnecessary here. | Unnecessary to apply modified-categorical approach; the elements support CIMT categorically. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review and deference for the BIA’s CIMT determination? | (Not explicitly argued as a separate theory.) | Chevron deference applies to the BIA’s interpretation of CIMT; state-law elements are reviewed de novo. | The BIA’s CIMT determination is upheld under applicable deference standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (CIMT finding supported by willful, wrongful behavior when fleeing officer)
- Serrato-Soto v. Holder, 570 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2009) (limits on reviewing CIMT when reviewing state elements vs. federal statute)
- Kellermann v. Holder, 592 F.3d 700 (6th Cir. 2010) (Chevron deference applied to BIA CIMT definitions; state statures reviewed de novo for meaning)