Flores-Molina v. Sessions
850 F.3d 1150
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Flores-Molina, an undocumented Mexican national, was convicted under Denver Municipal Code § 38-40 for allegedly giving false information to a city official during an investigation.
- After 2011, the federal government issued a Notice to Appear charging removability and seeking cancellation of removal; Flores-Molina admitted the removability allegations and applied for cancellation under § 1229b(b).
- An immigration judge ruled Flores-Molina statutorily barred from cancellation because § 38-40 was categorically a CIMT, relying on prior BIA/Silva-Trevino line of authority about deceit and moral turpitude.
- The BIA, in a single-member decision, upheld the CIMT determination by relying on longstanding BIA precedents treating deceitful conduct impairing government functions as CIMTs, and stated intent could be implied.
- Flores-Molina appealed, arguing § 38-40 lacks an express or inherent intent to defraud, deceive, or obstruct justice; the Attorney General vacated Silva-Trevino I in 2015 but did not disturb related precedents.
- The Tenth Circuit concluded the BIA erred: § 38-40 is not categorically a CIMT, and remanded for further removal proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DMC § 38-40 is categorically a CIMT | Flores-Molina argues no explicit or implicit fraud/mens rea element makes § 38-40 a CIMT. | Flores-Molina argues BIA correctly treated deceit that impairs government as CIMT; § 38-40 fits within those precedents. | Not categorically a CIMT. |
| Proper standard and deference to the BIA’s CIMT interpretation | BIA precedents are not distinguishable; deference should apply to the agency’s CIMT determination. | Chevron deference applies due to agency interpretation of CIMT; BIA precedents control. | Chevron deference not warranted; de novo review applies. |
| Application of the categorical approach to DMC § 38-40 | Under the categorical approach, § 38-40 does not require fraud or specific intent and thus falls outside CIMT. | Despite lack of explicit fraud, the statute implicates deceit and impairment of government functions as CIMT. | DMC § 38-40 does not fit the CIMT categories; not a CIMT under categorical approach. |
| Whether Colorado law shows § 38-40 is a general-intent offense and lacks implicit mens rea | Colorado law indicates § 38-40 is a general-intent offense; no implicit evil intent. | BIA/Khourn reasoning could imply mens rea for CIMT consideration. | § 38-40 is a general-intent offense; no implied CIMT mens rea. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Leon v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2015) (defines CIMT scope and avoids improper reliance on nonprecedential decisions)
- Rodriguez-Heredia v. Holder, 639 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2011) (categorical approach; determine if offense necessarily includes CIMT elements)
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; discusses categories of CIMT regarding fraud and deceit)
- Veloz-Luvevano v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2015) (fraud/inherent deceit framework for CIMT)
- Wittgenstein v. INS, 124 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 1997) (fraud-related CIMT principle; inherent deceit where appropriate)
- Rodriguez-Heredia v. Holder, 639 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2011) (application of categorical approach to CIMT analysis)
- Morones-Quinones v. Holder, 591 F. App’x 660 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished; related to CIMT analysis under Colorado impersonation statute)
- Beltran-Rubio v. Holder, 565 F. App’x 704 (10th Cir. 2014) (unpublished; discusses deception-based CIMT considerations)
- Castillo-Torres v. Holder, 394 F. App’x 517 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished; examines deception and CIMT in context of Padilla language)