Castillo v. Attorney General of the United States
411 F. App'x 500
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Castillo is a Peruvian native who entered the U.S. in 1985, became a permanent resident in 1990, and has multiple New Jersey criminal convictions (receiving stolen property in 1989 and shoplifting in 1993) that led to removal proceedings.
- Castle admitted removability at the IJ stage and sought cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a), but the IJ and BIA denied relief.
- The BIA held Castillo’s shoplifting conviction rendered him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and ended his continuous residence.
- The BIA concluded Castillo’s 1993 shoplifting offense was a crime involving moral turpitude, applying the 2006 version of New Jersey law rather than the 1994 version, and cast doubt on whether Castillo was convicted of a crime.
- This court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Castillo also raised due process and statutory-interpretation challenges related to the meaning of “convicted of a crime” under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the shoplifting conviction qualifies as a crime under §1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). | Castillo argues the offense was a disorderly persons offense, not a crime. | BIA treated the offense as a crime involving moral turpitude. | Remanded to resolve what constitutes a conviction of a crime under §1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). |
| Whether the BIA erred by applying the 2006 NJ version rather than the 1994 version. | Castillo contends the relevant state-law version in effect at the time should apply. | BIA applied the later version to classify the offense. | Remanded to apply the correct state-law version and determine impact on eligibility for relief. |
| Whether Castillo’s due process argument requires resolution before statutory analysis. | Castillo asserts due process concerns in how the statute is interpreted. | Court should defer pending the statutory interpretation. | Remanded pending resolution of the statutory issue. |
| Whether Castillo’s LPR status was properly rescinded consistent with Bamidele and Garcia. | Claims fraud- or status-based rescission; statute of limitations issues. | Removal relies on substantial criminal record, not fraudulent adjustment. | Rejected; no statute-of-limitations bar identified; petition granted on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheriff v. Attorney Gen., 587 F.3d 584 (3d Cir. 2009) (trusts review of BIA decision following Chevron framework)
- Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 2002) (review of BIA factual findings and legal determinations)
- Briseno-Flores v. Attorney Gen., 492 F.3d 226 (3d Cir. 2007) (substantial evidence standard for BIA factual findings)
- Acosta v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2003) (Chevron deference and statutory interpretation framework)
- Wang v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 347 (3d Cir. 2004) (usage of Chevron deference in INA interpretations)
- In re Eslamizar, 23 I. & N. Dec. 684 (BIA 2004) (BIA’s approach to ‘conviction’ when statute distinguishes crimes/violations)
- Bamidele v. INS, 99 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 1996) (due process/adjustment-based challenges to removal orders)
- Garcia v. Attorney Gen., 553 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 2009) (rejection of fraud-based attack on status where removal rests on criminal record)