929 F.3d 1020
8th Cir.2019Background
- Eduardo Adame-Hernandez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1994 and was later charged as removable.
- In June–July 2009 he pled guilty in Nebraska to multiple counts of driving under the influence and two convictions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-907 (false reporting).
- He conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under the INA.
- The IJ found at least one false-reporting conviction fell under § 28-907(1)(a), which requires intent to impede an actual criminal investigation, and concluded that offense is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation.
- The BIA affirmed; Adame-Hernandez petitioned for review arguing Nebraska’s false-reporting convictions are not CIMTs.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo questions of law and denied the petition, holding one conviction under § 28-907(1)(a) was a CIMT and sufficient to bar cancellation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Adame-Hernandez’s Nebraska false-reporting convictions are crimes involving moral turpitude | Nebraska statute does not categorically create a CIMT; prior decisions (Bobadilla) cast doubt on whether such offenses require morally depraved conduct | § 28-907(1)(a) requires intent to deceive/impede an actual criminal investigation, and crimes involving intent to deceive are generally CIMTs | One conviction under § 28-907(1)(a) is categorically a CIMT; petitioner is ineligible for cancellation |
| Whether a single CIMT conviction suffices to bar cancellation when multiple convictions exist | Argued only one conviction was explicitly under (1)(a), so ineligibility should not follow | A single qualifying CIMT conviction triggers statutory ineligibility for cancellation | A single confirmed conviction under (1)(a) is sufficient to deny cancellation |
| Applicability of Bobadilla v. Holder to Nebraska’s statute | Bobadilla’s skepticism about “intent to obstruct justice” requires remand or different treatment | Nebraska’s scienter is narrower (intent to impede an actual criminal investigation), distinguishing Bobadilla | Bobadilla does not control; Nebraska’s statute is narrower and requires intent to deceive, so CIMT finding stands |
| Petitioner’s late-raised petty-offense exception | Petitioner raised the petty-offense exception only in reply brief | Government contends the argument was waived for failure to raise earlier | Court deems the petty-offense argument waived and does not consider it |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda-Romero v. Lynch, 797 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard of review and single-CIMT-conviction sufficiency)
- Guardado-Garcia v. Holder, 615 F.3d 900 (8th Cir. 2010) (definition of crimes involving moral turpitude; intent to deceive generally qualifies)
- Chanmouny v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 810 (8th Cir. 2004) (categorical/divisible statute framework for CIMT analysis)
- Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2014) (remand where state statute’s scienter was too broad/undefined to categorically qualify as a CIMT)
- Villatoro v. Holder, 760 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2014) (reiterating that intent-to-deceive crimes generally involve moral turpitude)
- Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2008) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)