Avinesh Rohit v Eric Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4099
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rohit petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of voluntary departure in his removal proceeding.
- He was convicted in California for disorderly conduct involving prostitution under § 647(b) and for attempting to dissuade a witness under § 136.1(c).
- The IJ initially held these offenses categorically crimes involving moral turpitude, rendering Rohit removable, and denied relief but did not adjudicate voluntary departure.
- The Board affirmed, remanding for the IJ to address Rohit’s voluntary departure; on remand the IJ denied departure and the Board dismissed Rohit’s appeal.
- On appeal, this court previously suggested the Board had erred in treating § 647(b) as involving moral turpitude and remanded for that issue to be decided.
- The Board on remand held that disorderly conduct involving prostitution is a crime involving moral turpitude and Rohit challenges the ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 647(b) a crime involving moral turpitude? | Rohit argues solicitation of prostitution is not moral turpitude. | Holder argues precedents support treating solicitation as moral turpitude and relies on Chevron deference. | Yes; § 647(b) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (deference framework for agency statutory interpretations under Chevron)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (S. Ct. 2001) (defers to agency interpretations that carry the force of law)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (S. Ct. 1984) (establishes principle of deference to agency interpretations under ambiguity)
- Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 232 U.S. 134 (S. Ct. 1944) (persuasive non-binding deference based on reasoning and consistency)
- Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (analsysi of moral turpitude and related precedents)
- Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299 (9th Cir. 2010) (definition scope of moral turpitude and related criteria)
- Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2007) (example distinguishing acts not inherently moral turpitude)