Hackshaw v. Attorney General of the United States of America
458 F. App'x 137
3rd Cir.2012Background
- Hackshaw, a Trinidad and Tobago citizen and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to indecent exposure in the first degree under Delaware law.
- He received a Notice to Appear charging removal for an aggravated felony, specifically sexual abuse of a minor, under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
- He was also charged as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) on the basis of a “crime of child abuse.”
- The IJ initially held the conviction to be an aggravated felony, blocking cancellation of removal; the BIA disagreed and remanded for a determination on the “crime of child abuse” issue.
- The IJ later held the conviction qualified as a crime of child abuse, and the BIA affirmed; the matter was remanded to resolve cancellation of removal.
- Hackshaw petitioned for review; the BIA later dismissed the appeal and remanded for voluntary departure while Hackshaw challenged the BIA’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chevron deference applies to BIA interpretation of 'crime of child abuse' | Hackshaw argues the BIA’s broad interpretation is not permissible | Hackshaw contends the agency’s interpretation is permissible and entitled to Chevron deference | BIA’s broad interpretation is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference |
| Whether Hackshaw’s Delaware indecent exposure statute qualifies as a ‘crime of child abuse’ | Hackshaw contends it does not categorically fall within the definition | Government contends it falls within the BIA's broad construction | Conviction qualifies as a ‘crime of child abuse’ under the BIA’s interpretation |
| Whether the immigration court’s conclusion regarding ‘crime of child abuse’ is reviewable on the petition for review | Appeals argue for review of the legal issue despite discretionary cancellation denial | Government asserts discretionary denial is not reviewable; only the legal issue is reviewable | Court has jurisdiction to review the legal question of whether the conviction qualifies as a ‘crime of child abuse’ |
| What standard of review applies to legal determinations in this context | Claims plenary review over legal questions | Agree that law questions are reviewed de novo | The court reviews the legal question de novo with plenary authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (framework for categorizing crimes under § 1227(a)(2)(E))
- Singh v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2004) (permissible to look beyond conviction to determine offense version)
- Restrepo v. Attorney General, 617 F.3d 787 (3d Cir. 2010) (interprets undefined phrase 'sexual abuse of a minor' as not clear and unambiguous)
- Pareja v. Attorney General, 615 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2010) (recognizes review of statutory interpretations under Chevron)