134 F.4th 207
4th Cir.2025Background
- Eugenia Bautista Chavez, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2000 and was convicted of Virginia petit larceny in 2011.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings based on her conviction; Chavez conceded removability but sought cancellation of removal, citing hardship to her children.
- The Immigration Judge found Chavez ineligible for cancellation due to her conviction being classified as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
- Chavez appealed, arguing Virginia’s petit larceny statute allowed conviction based on negligent conduct and for minimal property value, thus not categorically a CIMT.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal, maintaining the offense was a CIMT and denied her motion to reconsider.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed the petition following the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright decision, which altered deference to agency interpretations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Virginia petit larceny requires a culpable mental state for CIMT | Can be convicted for negligent conduct (sincerely but unreasonably believing property is abandoned) | Virginia law requires specific intent to permanently deprive; claim-of-right defense is subjective | Petit larceny requires specific intent, not negligence; thus, meets CIMT mental state |
| Whether petit larceny involves reprehensible conduct requisite for CIMT | Does not require conduct "shocking to the conscience" since value can be de minimis | Any theft, regardless of value, is inherently reprehensible and meets CIMT standards | Value is immaterial; the act of theft with intent to permanently deprive is sufficiently reprehensible |
| Effect of Loper Bright on Board precedent interpreting CIMT statutes | Chevron deference removed; court should not follow past deference | Agency interpretations should be given "due respect" but not controlling | Loper Bright does not upend established precedent; court maintains substantive legal standards |
| Authority of temporary BIA member to deny reconsideration | Temporary member’s appointment had expired; lacked authority | Regulation permits consecutive temporary appointments; court upheld such appointments in similar cases | Appointment valid per circuit precedent; denial of reconsideration stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Holder, 783 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2015) (concedes Virginia petit larceny is a CIMT, but did not decide the issues argued here)
- Sotnikau v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 2017) (defines two elements for CIMT: culpable mental state and reprehensible conduct)
- Ramirez v. Sessions, 887 F.3d 693 (4th Cir. 2018) (mental state required for CIMT must be intent to achieve an immoral result)
- Granados v. Garland, 17 F.4th 475 (4th Cir. 2021) (applies categorical approach to determining CIMT)
- Bell v. Commonwealth, 189 S.E. 441 (Va. 1937) (both grand and petit larceny are crimes involving moral turpitude)
- Nunez-Vasquez v. Barr, 965 F.3d 272 (4th Cir. 2020) (a statute allowing conviction for negligence does not meet CIMT standard)
- Lopez v. Garland, 116 F.4th 1032 (9th Cir. 2024) (after Loper Bright, Board’s CIMT interpretations are persuasive, not controlling)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (recognizes complexity in determining what is a CIMT)