Campbell v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21910
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Campbell, a lawful permanent resident, was charged in Connecticut with four counts including a risk-of-injury to a minor; he pled nolo contendere to one count under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-21(a)(1).
- The court sentenced Campbell to five years in prison with five years’ probation, suspending the sentence subject to sex offender evaluation and strict contact restrictions with a minor.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings under INA § 240, alleging Campbell was removable for (i) child abuse, (ii) a crime of violence, and (iii) sexual abuse of a minor, with aggravated-felony consequences affecting cancellation eligibility.
- The IJ found Campbell removable on all three grounds and ineligible for cancellation due to aggravated-felony status.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ but only addressed the sexual-abuse ground, not the other two grounds, and Campbell petitioned for review in this court.
- This court reviews removal determinations de novo for legal questions, including whether a statute supports an aggravated felony under the INA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Conn. § 53-21(a)(1) divisible to create a predicate for sexual abuse of a minor? | Campbell argues the endangerment statute does not reliably map to a sexual-abuse predicate. | The government contends the statute can be treated as encompassing offenses that include sexual abuse. | No valid divisible-composition to match sexual-abuse predicate. |
| Does Taylor–Shepard apply to determine the crime of conviction for INA purposes in this context? | Campbell maintains that the conviction should be analyzed using traditional statutory elements plus record. | Government argues for the modified categorical approach to identify the relevant subsumed offense. | Taylor–Shepard framework applies to INA contexts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard; removal based on convictions)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (S. Ct. 2009) (fact-specific inquiry permitted for divisible statutes; framework for aggravated felonies)
- Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1265 (U.S. 2010) (mandatory modified categorical approach for divisible statutes)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (establishes framework for determining crime of conviction from statute)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (U.S. 2005) (supplements Taylor with plea/record evidence for conviction analysis)
- Kawashima v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 1166 (U.S. 2012) (categorical approach in INA aggravated felony context; fact-specific provisions noted)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (U.S. 2010) (categorical approach in aggravated felony determination)
- Beardsley, 691 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2012) (illustrates limits of relying on underlying conduct for predicate offenses)
- Conteh, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (reiterates that BIA may not adjudicate guilt; focus on convictions)