Florez v. Holder, 779 F.3d 207

Petitioner Nilfor Yosel Florez, a lawful permanent resident from Honduras, was twice convicted under N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10(1) for endangering the welfare of a child; the 2010 conviction involved driving under the influence with his two young children in the car.
DHS initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), which makes removable any alien convicted of a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.”
Florez admitted the factual allegations but contested that his convictions constituted a federal “crime of child abuse.”
The Immigration Judge relied on BIA precedent (Matter of Velazquez-Herrera; Matter of Soram) and found Florez removable; the BIA affirmed, applying a broad BIA definition that includes endangerment crimes that do not require an actual injury.
On review, Florez argued the BIA’s broad interpretation is unreasonable and not entitled to Chevron deference; the Second Circuit assumed Soram’s definition would include § 260.10(1) but evaluated whether the BIA’s interpretation is a permissible construction of an ambiguous statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “crime of child abuse” in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) unambiguously excludes child-endangerment statutes that do not require actual injury	Florez: The BIA’s broad reading is unreasonable; Congress did not clearly adopt endangerment-only offenses without injury	Government/BIA: The term is ambiguous and the BIA’s inclusive construction (covering reckless/neglectful endangerment posing sufficient risk) is reasonable	The statute is ambiguous; the BIA’s broad definition is a permissible construction entitled to Chevron deference; petition denied

Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (two-step test for judicial review of agency statutory constructions)
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency interpretations can override prior judicial constructions under Chevron)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (use of the majority rule among states to define a generic statutory term)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (categorical approach: compare state statute to generic federal offense)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical approach and presumption that conviction rests on least culpable conduct)