Cristoval Silva-Trevino v. Eric Holder, Jr.
742 F.3d 197
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Silva-Trevino challenges the Attorney General’s new method for classifying convictions under INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i).
- The AG’s method allows extrinsic evidence beyond the formal record to determine whether a conviction involves moral turpitude.
- The Board applied this method on remand, using extrinsic materials to find a CMT conviction.
- The issue is whether “convicted of” requires a categorical approach focused on the conviction record alone.
- The court concludes the statutory text is unambiguous and rejects extrinsic inquiry under the categorical framework.
- The case is remanded with the Board’s decision vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase “convicted of” in INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i) is ambiguous. | Silva-Trevino: ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence. | AG: ambiguity justifies considering extrinsic evidence. | Not ambiguous; categorical approach required. |
| Whether the Attorney General may look beyond the conviction record to determine moral turpitude. | Silva-Trevino: extrinsic evidence impermissible under statute. | AG: extrinsic evidence necessary to classify conviction. | Extrinsic inquiry not permitted; used inapplicable contexts. |
| Whether Nijhawan/Bianco support looking beyond the record for INA § 212 determinations. | Nijhawan/Bianco govern similar inquiries. | Those decisions are distinguishable. | Distinguishable; not controlling for § 212. |
| Whether Congress’s longstanding categorical interpretation should be overridden by agency action. | Silva-Trevino: longstanding precedent controls. | Chevron deference to agency interpretation. | Congress spoke directly; agency interpretation rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (U.S. 2009) (permissible to consider extrinsic evidence in subset contexts)
- Bianco v. Holder, 624 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2010) (extrinsic evidence allowed for certain subsets of conviction categories)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1990) (categorical approach anchored in statutory language and elements)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (U.S. 2013) (categorical approach in immigration convictions; prevalence of record-based analysis)
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1978) (Congress aware of universal categorical interpretation when re-enacting statute)
- Brand X Internet Servs. v. Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n, 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. 2005) (agency deference when statute ambiguous but Congress delegated authority)