Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985

Background

Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez, a Mexican national and long‑time U.S. lawful permanent resident, has schizophrenia and has taken medication for most of his life.
In 2004 he pled guilty to California assault with a deadly non‑firearm weapon after swinging a weightlifting bell that grazed a storeowner’s head; he received a two‑year sentence.
DHS charged removability as an aggravated felony and Gomez‑Sanchez applied for withholding of removal and CAT relief, claiming risk in Mexico due to his chronic mental illness and lack of care.
The IJ found the conviction was a "particularly serious crime," barring withholding of removal; the IJ emphasized the dangerousness of the act and the two‑year sentence.
The BIA affirmed in Matter of G‑G‑S‑, announcing a categorical rule that mental health is not a factor in the particularly serious crime analysis and that immigration adjudicators cannot “go behind” criminal determinations.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the BIA’s categorical prohibition on considering mental‑health evidence in the particularly serious crime inquiry is unlawful and unreasonable under Chevron.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Gomez‑Sanchez)	Defendant's Argument (BIA/Gov't)	Held
Whether the BIA may categorically exclude mental‑health evidence when determining if a conviction is a "particularly serious crime"	The BIA’s categorical rule is legally wrong because INA requires a case‑by‑case analysis and all relevant, reliable evidence (including mental health) must be considered	The BIA may not "go behind" criminal convictions; mental health belongs to criminal courts and is irrelevant to the particularly serious crime determination	The BIA’s categorical prohibition is unlawful: it conflicts with statute and precedent and is unreasonable; mental health evidence may be considered when relevant and reliable
Whether the BIA’s rule is entitled to Chevron deference	Chevron deference should not uphold an interpretation that prevents required individualized inquiry	Agency interpretations deserve Chevron deference if reasonable	Court applied Chevron and rejected the BIA rule under both steps: it conflicts with Congress’s case‑by‑case design and fails step two as unreasonable
Whether consideration of mental‑health evidence would impermissibly relitigate criminal culpability	Mental‑health evidence can be considered for dangerousness without retrying guilt; some mental‑health evidence may never have been presented to criminal courts	Considering mental health would improperly reassess criminal findings and intrude on criminal proceedings	Court held immigration adjudicators may consider reliable mental‑health evidence in assessing dangerousness; doing so does not necessarily relitigate criminal guilt
Whether the BIA’s interpretation conflicts with its own precedents permitting consideration of extra‑record evidence	N/A — Gomez‑Sanchez pointed to prior BIA decisions allowing "all reliable information"	BIA tried to distinguish prior practice; relied on principle against relitigation	Court found the BIA’s new rule inconsistent with earlier BIA decisions (e.g., In re N‑A‑M‑) and arbitrary/unexplained, so not entitled to deference

Key Cases Cited

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. N.R.D.C., Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency interpretations entitled to deference when statute ambiguous)
Blandino‑Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338 (9th Cir. 2013) (INA requires case‑by‑case particularly serious crime analysis)
Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing scope of particularly serious crime inquiry and application of Chevron)
Konou v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2014) (rejecting bright‑line rules that undermine individualized Frentescu analysis)
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2013) (BIA acts arbitrarily when it disregards its own precedents without reasoned explanation)
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117 (agency rule changes must be reasoned; unexplained inconsistency can be arbitrary)
Marmolejo‑Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (agency interpretations unreasonable where inconsistent)
Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (principles on agency statutory interpretation and review)