969 F.3d 129
5th Cir.2020Background
- Jose Antonio Garcia, a Mexican national and lawful permanent resident since 1990, raped and impregnated his 14-year-old stepdaughter in 1999; the offense was disclosed later and Garcia was arrested and convicted in 2018 under Tex. Penal Code § 22.011(a)(2) (sexual assault of a child) and sentenced to ten years’ probation.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings under INA § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as having been convicted of a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.”
- The immigration judge found Garcia removable under the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) precedential definition of “crime of child abuse”; the BIA affirmed and denied cancellation of removal.
- Garcia petitioned the Fifth Circuit, raising (1) that the BIA’s interpretation of “crime of child abuse” is not entitled to Chevron deference and (2) that his Texas conviction does not categorically match the BIA’s definition.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo but applied Chevron framework to the BIA’s interpretation and applied the categorical approach to the state statute.
- Holding: the court afforded Chevron deference to the BIA’s reasonable definition and held that § 22.011(a)(2) categorically qualifies as a crime of child abuse; Garcia’s petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA’s definition of “crime of child abuse” is entitled to Chevron deference | BIA’s definition is overbroad and relies on non-criminal/civil authorities; thus not entitled to Chevron | Statute is silent/ambiguous; BIA’s interpretation is a reasonable construction entitled to Chevron deference | Court: statute ambiguous; BIA’s interpretation is a reasonable construction and receives Chevron deference |
| Whether Texas § 22.011(a)(2) categorically matches the BIA’s definition of a crime of child abuse | § 22.011 is broader (doesn’t require knowledge of victim’s age; allegedly lacks an element of harm) so it is not a categorical match | § 22.011 requires intentional/knowing sexual acts against a victim under 17 and involves sexual contact/exploitation, satisfying BIA elements | Court: § 22.011(a)(2) meets BIA’s age, mens rea (intent/knowledge as to act), and harm/sexual-abuse elements; categorical match; conviction renders Garcia removable |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (establishes two-step deference framework)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, 556 U.S. 208 (agency interpretation need only be reasonable)
- Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (distinguishes statutory-rape/"sexual abuse of a minor" analysis; not controlling here)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (describes categorical-approach analysis)
- Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (categorical/modified-categorical approach guidance)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (Fifth Circuit review standards for removability and deference)
- Ibarra v. Holder, 736 F.3d 903 (10th Cir. decision rejecting BIA’s definition)
- Mondragon-Gonzalez v. Attorney General, 884 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. decision deferring to BIA)
- Florez v. Holder, 779 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. decision deferring to BIA)
- Alvarez-Cerriteno v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. decision deferring to BIA)