Background

• Machado-Zuniga, a Honduran lawful permanent resident admitted in 2006, pleaded guilty in 2007 to transporting stolen goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
• DHS initiated removal proceedings under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission.
• The IJ found the conviction categorically involved moral turpitude; the BIA affirmed by identifying the specific portion of § 2314 under which he was convicted.
• The BIA applied the modified categorical approach to the particular paragraph charged, rather than declaring all § 2314 convictions categorical crimes of moral turpitude.
• Machado-Zuniga argued the BIA used the wrong legal framework and that the paragraph of § 2314 under which he was convicted does not necessarily involve moral turpitude (because knowledge of theft could arise after transport began).
• The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo, accepted that the statute is divisible for present purposes, and denied the petition, holding the charged paragraph involves moral turpitude.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762 (11th Cir. 2007) (limits review to BIA where BIA does not expressly adopt IJ opinion)
• Cano v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 709 F.3d 1052 (11th Cir. 2013) (jurisdiction to review legal questions whether conviction qualifies as crime involving moral turpitude)
• Donawa v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 735 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2013) (explains categorical and modified categorical approaches)
• Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (defines divisibility and limits modified categorical approach)
• Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (cautions against fact-based inquiry beyond categorical focus)
• Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002) (defines moral turpitude as baseness or dishonesty)
• United States v. Turner, 871 F.2d 1574 (11th Cir. 1989) (knowledge of theft may be established after receiving goods during transport)