Hernandez-Cruz v. Attorney General of the United States, 764 F.3d 281

Hernandez-Cruz, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1998 and later pled guilty in Pennsylvania to simple assault and child endangerment.
DHS charged him with removability as an alien present without admission/parole and also as an alien convicted of a CIMT based on his Pennsylvania convictions.
The Immigration Judge held Hernandez-Cruz removable for both grounds, determining the child endangerment conviction was a CIMT but the simple assault conviction was not.
The IJ found that, if not for the CIMT, Hernandez-Cruz would be eligible for cancellation of removal; but the CIMT finding rendered him ineligible.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, agreeing the simple assault conviction was not a CIMT but the child endangerment conviction was a CIMT, and dismissed the cancellation appeal.
Hernandez-Cruz petitioned for review, challenging the CIMT classification of the child endangerment conviction and seeking remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does PA § 4304(a)(1) involve moral turpitude?	Hernandez-Cruz contends least culpable conduct under § 4304(a)(1) is not CIMT.	BIA concluded the statute implicates moral turpitude due to knowing conduct plus durable duty to protect.	No; § 4304(a)(1) does not implicate CIMT; remand for further proceedings.

Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84 (3d Cir. 2004) (moral turpitude defined; deference not given to criminal-statute interpretation)
Totimeh v. Att’y Gen., 666 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (moral turpitude scope; examples of inherently base conduct)
Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2009) (categorical approach; least culpable conduct under statute)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (SCOT 2013) (categorical approach; compare statute to generic CIMT)
Partyka v. Att’y Gen., 417 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 2005) (reliance on conduct’s moral character; purpose of CIMT analysis)
Commonwealth v. Retkofsky, 860 A.2d 1098 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (explains knowing endangerment and duty context under § 4304(a)(1))
Commonwealth v. Coppedge, 984 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009) (examples of non-turpitudinous conduct punished under § 4304(a)(1))
Commonwealth v. Wallace, 817 A.2d 485 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (inaction potentially endangering welfare under § 4304(a)(1))
Mehboob v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2008) (deference framework for BIA CIMT determinations)
Bautista v. Att’y Gen., 744 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for BIA’s merits decisions)