Gabriel Almanza-Arenas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
771 F.3d 1184
9th Cir.2014Background
- Gabriel Almanza-Arenas, a Mexican national, pled nolo contendere in California (Sept. 12, 2000) to a misdemeanor violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 10851(a) and received 24 days in county jail.
- § 10851(a) criminalizes both temporary takings (joyriding) and permanent takings (theft); only permanent takings constitute crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for immigration purposes.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2005; Almanza-Arenas conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), disclosing his § 10851(a) conviction.
- The IJ and BIA treated the conviction as potentially a CIMT; the BIA required the plea colloquy transcript and, finding the record ambiguous, concluded Almanza-Arenas failed to meet his burden to show the conviction was not for a CIMT and denied cancellation.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the § 10851(a) conviction was a CIMT, addressed the categorical and modified categorical approaches (including divisibility), and considered the effect of Moncrieffe v. Holder on prior Ninth Circuit precedent (Young v. Holder).
- The court held § 10851(a) is indivisible and not categorically a CIMT; because the record was inconclusive, the conviction must be presumed to rest on the least culpable conduct (temporary taking), so Almanza-Arenas is eligible for cancellation of removal. The petition was granted and the case remanded to the BIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under Cal. Veh. Code § 10851(a) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) | Almanza-Arenas: § 10851(a) criminalizes temporary takings (joyriding); his conviction should not be treated as a CIMT | DHS: § 10851(a) can constitute a theft/CIMT; ambiguous record warrants denial of cancellation | § 10851(a) is not categorically a CIMT because it criminalizes temporary takings; conviction is not necessarily a CIMT |
| Whether § 10851(a) is divisible (allowing the modified categorical approach) | Almanza-Arenas: statute is indivisible—it provides alternative means, not alternative elements | DHS: BIA treated record as ambiguous and applied modified categorical approach to determine CIMT | Court: § 10851(a) is indivisible; modified categorical approach is inapplicable |
| Whether an inconclusive record of conviction renders petitioner ineligible for cancellation | Almanza-Arenas: ambiguity must be resolved in his favor; presume least culpable conduct (joyriding) | DHS/BIA: petitioner failed to meet burden to prove conviction was not a CIMT because record was inconclusive | Under Moncrieffe, ambiguity favors the noncitizen; an inconclusive record does not bar cancellation |
| Whether Young v. Holder remains controlling after Moncrieffe | Almanza-Arenas: Moncrieffe overrules Young to the extent Young required conclusive records for relief eligibility | DHS: relied on Young to deny relief when record ambiguous | Court: Moncrieffe effectively overrules Young on this point; ambiguity must be construed in favor of the noncitizen |
Key Cases Cited
- Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (explains categorical and modified categorical approaches and divisibility requirement)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (ambiguity in record must be construed in noncitizen's favor; presume least culpable conduct)
- Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (previous en banc rule requiring conclusive record for cancellation; held to be inconsistent with Moncrieffe)
- Castillo-Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes temporary takings from permanent takings as CIMTs)
- United States v. Vidal, 504 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007) (procedural context regarding judicial requests for conviction records)