Efagene v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8892
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Efagene, a Nigerian citizen, has been a lawful permanent resident since 1991.
- In 2005, Efagene pled guilty to Colorado sexual conduct-no consent (misdemeanor) under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-404, with 364 days’ imprisonment and a ten-year sex-offender registration.
- In 2007, Efagene failed to register as required and pled guilty to misdemeanor failure-to-register under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-412.5(1)(a),(3), receiving 30 days’ imprisonment and a $100 fine.
- DHS charged Efagene with removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) based on two CMt convictions: sexual conduct-no consent and failure-to-register.
- An IJ ordered removal; the BIA affirmed in an unpublished order; Efagene petitioned for review and obtained a stay of removal.
- The Tenth Circuit grants the petition, reverses the BIA, and vacates the removal order, evaluating whether the Colorado failure-to-register offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under the INA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA decision is entitled to Chevron deference | Efagene contends no Chevron deference applies to a nonprecedential BIA ruling. | Holders argues the BIA decision may receive Chevron deference if it relies on prior precedent. | Chevron deference does not sustain the BIA on this issue. |
| Does Colorado misdemeanor failure-to-register categorically involve moral turpitude | Efagene argues the statute is regulatory/omission-based and not inherently base or depraved. | Government contends Tobar-Lobo extends moral turpitude to such offenses. | Not a crime involving moral turpitude categorically. |
| Should the court remand under the modified categorical approach | If not categorically CIMT, remand to evaluate underlying conduct. | Remand not required where none of the statute's modes show CIMT conduct. | Remand not required; the categorical approach ends the inquiry. |
| Is the failure-to-register offense a regulatory crime not involving moral turpitude under BIA precedent | Registration offenses are regulatory and typically do not involve moral turpitude. | Tobar-Lobo treats failure-to-register as CIMT due to societal obligation. | Regulatory nature and lack of inherent base conduct mean no CIMT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach governs CIMT analysis)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (applies Taylor to INA context)
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (applies Taylor to CIMT analysis in immigration)
- In re Tobar-Lobo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 143 (BIA 2007) (California failure-to-register treated as CIMT)
- In re Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (BIA 2008) (framework for moral turpitude analysis and modified approach)
- Navarro-López v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (overbreadth concerns in CIMT definitions)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (regulatory/offense-based offenses often not CIMT)
- Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (regulatory misreporting not CIMT)
- Lopez-Meza, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1188 (BIA 1999) (DUI lacks mens rea; not CIMT)
- Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2003) (drunk driving not CIMT on dicta)