Cesar Solis-Flores v. Merrick Garland, 82 F.4th 264

Cesar Solis-Flores, a Mexican national, admitted removability and sought cancellation of removal; IJ denied cancellation based on a 2000 Virginia conviction for receiving stolen property (Va. Code § 18.2-108) as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
The IJ granted voluntary departure in lieu of removal but Solis-Flores did not post the required voluntary-departure bond.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that the receipt conviction is a CIMT and thus bars cancellation, and declined to remand or reinstate voluntary departure because Solis-Flores failed to post bond and (over a dissent) the IJ allegedly need not give advance notice of the bond requirement.
Solis-Flores petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review challenging (1) the CIMT determination and (2) whether the IJ was required to advise him of the bond obligation before granting voluntary departure.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the CIMT ruling (agreeing that knowing receipt qualifies) but held the BIA erred as a matter of law on the bond-advisal issue and remanded for the BIA to consider whether to remand to the IJ for a new period of voluntary departure with the required pre-grant advisals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether receiving stolen property is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and whether Va. §18.2-108 so qualifies	Solis‑Flores: receipt should not be a CIMT absent proof of intent to permanently deprive the owner; potential theoretical applications of the statute could fall outside CIMT	Board/Govt: Board precedent treats knowing receipt as sufficient for CIMT; Va. §18.2‑108 requires knowledge and dishonest intent, so conviction is a CIMT	Court: deferred to the BIA that knowledge of stolen nature suffices; applied categorical approach and held §18.2‑108 conviction is a CIMT; denied relief on cancellation claim
Whether IJ must advise an alien of the voluntary-departure bond amount and deadline before granting voluntary departure under 8 C.F.R. §1240.26(c)(3)(i)	Solis‑Flores: IJ failed to provide the required pre-grant advisal and seeks remand for a new voluntary-departure period with proper advisals	BIA: advance notice is required only for discretionary conditions, not mandatory conditions like the bond; no remand	Court: BIA erred — the regulation unambiguously requires the IJ to inform the alien of bond amount/deadline before granting voluntary departure; remanded to BIA to decide whether to remand to IJ for a new period (did not resolve prejudice)

Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (review of BIA decision as final order of removal)
Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct. 754 (U.S. 2021) (burden and requirements for cancellation eligibility)
Sotnikau v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 2017) (CIMT requires culpable mental state and reprehensible conduct)
Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (use of the categorical approach)
Mohamed v. Holder, 769 F.3d 885 (4th Cir. 2014) (conduct must independently violate moral norms for CIMT)
De Leon v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2015) (supporting rule that knowing receipt of stolen goods can be a CIMT)
Castillo‑Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (contrary Ninth Circuit view on the intent requirement for receipt offenses)
Gonzales v. Duenas‑Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (U.S. 2007) (realistic-probability test for statute overbreadth in categorical approach)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (agency actions must be upheld on the basis articulated by the agency)