Fajardo v. U.S. Attorney General
659 F.3d 1303
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sanchez Fajardo, a Cuban native, became a lawful permanent resident in 2002 and was convicted in Florida of false imprisonment, misdemeanor assault, and misdemeanor battery following a marital altercation.
- After a 2005 visit abroad, DHS initiated removal proceedings arguing his convictions were CIMTs; the government conceded assault and battery were not CIMTs.
- The IJ and BIA held the false imprisonment conviction to be a CIMT, relying on extrinsic information beyond the record of conviction.
- They followed Silva-Trevino's framework permitting consideration of additional evidence to determine moral turpitude.
- The government sought deference under Chevron to Silva-Trevino's approach, while Sanchez Fajardo urged adherence to the categorical approach.
- This court granted relief, remanding to determine whether the Florida false imprisonment statute qualifies as a CIMT under the categorical/modified categorical framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the first prong of INA §212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) requires a categorical/modified approach. | Sanchez Fajardo argues for a categorical approach. | Government argues for Silva-Trevino's extrinsic-evidence framework with deference. | Unambiguous congressional intent requires categorical/modified approach. |
| Whether Silva-Trevino is valid and applicable to determine CIMT convictions. | Sanchez Fajardo contends Silva-Trevino misreads the statute. | Government maintains Silva-Trevino is permissible and deference applies. | Silva-Trevino is not controlling; the approach is contrary to Congress's clear intent. |
| Whether the Florida false imprisonment statute is categorically a CIMT. | Record insufficient to show the statute inherently involves CIMT. | Statutory definition could encompass CIMT conduct. | Not resolved; remand to assess under categorical/modified approach. |
| Whether relying on assault/battery convictions to interpret false imprisonment was appropriate. | Relying on unrelated offenses was improper. | The record may include related contextual facts under the approach. | Improper to rely on extrinsic information; remand for proper analysis. |
| Whether the record includes sufficient basis to determine CIMT status of false imprisonment. | Record is unclear on underlying conduct. | Record-coninitives may support CIMT determination. | Remand to determine if false imprisonment constitutes a CIMT. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 200 F.2d 546 (5th Cir.1952) (look to record and inherent nature of offense to determine CIMT)
- Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.2002) (inherent nature of offense governs CIMT as defined by statute)
- Garcia v. U.S. Attorney General, 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.2003) (focus on statutory elements to determine CIMT)
- Vuksanovic v. U.S. Attorney General, 439 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir.2006) (categorical determination based on statutory definition, not facts)
- Sosa-Martinez v. U.S. Attorney General, 420 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.2005) (cited for CAT approach to CIMT without underlying facts)
- Jean-Louis v. Attorney General, 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir.2009) (rejects Silva-Trevino; supports categorical approach)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines categorical approach to prior offenses)
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (discusses the role of record evidence in modified approach)