Jean Bernard Gelin v. U.S. Attorney General
837 F.3d 1236
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Jean Bernard Gelin, a Haitian national who entered the U.S. illegally in 1992, was convicted in Florida (2002) of a felony under Fla. Stat. § 825.102(1) — "abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult."
- DHS denied Gelin Temporary Protected Status and issued a Notice to Appear (2011) charging removability for unlawful presence and for a conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude (CIMT).
- Gelin conceded removability on the immigration-status ground and sought cancellation of removal; eligibility turns on whether his § 825.102(1) conviction is a CIMT.
- The IJ found the conviction categorically a CIMT; the BIA affirmed, applying the categorical approach and concluding the statute’s least culpable conduct requires a culpable mental state and targets vulnerable victims.
- The Eleventh Circuit (majority) held § 825.102(1) categorically is a CIMT and dismissed Gelin’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fla. Stat. § 825.102(1) is categorically a CIMT | Gelin: statute can encompass conduct (reckless or without knowledge of victim’s protected status) that is not morally turpitudinous | Government/BIA: statute requires knowing/willful conduct targeting manifestly vulnerable victims and thus involves moral turpitude | Court: § 825.102(1) is categorically a CIMT (least culpable subpart § 825.102(1)(c) suffices) |
| Whether court has jurisdiction to review removal order | Gelin: contesting legal classification of his conviction | Government: if conviction is a CIMT, jurisdiction is limited under § 1252(a)(2)(C) | Court: because conviction is a CIMT, jurisdiction to review merits of removal is barred; petition dismissed |
| Applicability of modified categorical approach / divisibility of the statute | Gelin: analysis should be limited to the statute (categorical); parties also assumed divisibility to consult record | Government/BIA: applied categorical approach and found conviction categorical CIMT; noted record inconclusive on specifics | Court: need not decide divisibility or consult Shepard documents because categorical approach already resolves issue in favor of CIMT |
| Johnson vagueness challenge to § 825.102(1)’s “could reasonably be expected” language | Gelin: Johnson v. United States voids analogous residual-type language as unconstitutionally vague | Government: Johnson is distinct (ACCA residual clause) and aliens have no protected liberty interest in discretionary relief | Court: rejected Johnson argument as improper collateral attack in this proceeding and meritless on the merits; statute’s language differs from ACCA residual clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Cano v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 709 F.3d 1052 (11th Cir.) (definition and framework for CIMT analysis)
- Keungne v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (criminally reckless conduct can constitute a CIMT)
- Fajardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (use of categorical approach for CIMT questions)
- Sosa-Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 420 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir.) (jurisdictional limits where conviction is a CIMT)
- Garcia v. Att’y Gen., 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir.) (aggravated child abuse as CIMT precedent)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. (Sup. Ct.) (ACCA residual-clause vagueness decision — distinguished by the court)