Fredy Sanchez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
757 F.3d 712
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Sanchez challenged a BIA dismissal of his removal-relief appeal.
- He is a Salvadoran national who entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1989 and has U.S. citizen children.
- He pursued NACARA relief and other forms of removal relief; proceedings referenced his conviction records.
- In 2009 he was charged in Indiana with leaving the scene after an injury-related accident; conviction listed as misdemeanor, though case chronology labels it a Class D felony.
- The IJ treated the Indiana conviction as a CIMT under a categorical approach, and Sanchez’s appeal argued for a broader, individualized Silva-Trevino analysis.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals did not correctly apply the Silva-Trevino three-step framework and relied on an inconclusive record of conviction to deny relief, prompting remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the CIMT determination followed Silva-Trevino’s three-step framework | Sanchez argues proper, individualized analysis was required | Board applied the CIMT framework but relied on an inconclusive record | Remanded for proper Silva-Trevino application |
| Whether the record of conviction suffices to determine CIMT or requires further evidence | Record alone may be inconclusive; additional evidence may be necessary | Record presumed sufficient to deny relief under burden framework | Remanded to consider additional evidence or explain why not |
| Whether the Board misapplied 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d) burden-shifting in CIMT inquiry | Burden is on alien to show statute does not involve CIMT in first stage | Record alone determines CIMT eligibility under Board’s rationale | Remand for proper application of the Silva-Trevino framework |
| Whether any portion of Ind. Code § 9-26-1-8 inherently constitutes CIMT | Indiana case law shows non-turpitudinous applications; burden of proof not met | Statute could categorically qualify as CIMT | Remand to assess if any portion qualifies as CIMT with tailored factual analysis |
| Whether the Board should consider evidence beyond the record of conviction | Silva-Trevino allows considering affidavits and other evidence | Board could rely on record if sufficient | Remand to determine necessity/appropriateness of additional evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Lagunas-Salgado v. Holder, 584 F.3d 707 (7th Cir. 2009) (definition of CIMT and context for moral turpitude discussions)
- Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (three-step framework for CIMT determination; beyond-record evidence allowed)
- Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, 627 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 2010) (controls methodology for CIMT analysis; defers to AG’s framework)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (deference to broader evidence beyond charging documents in CIMT analysis)
- Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc; discusses CIMT analysis in removal context)