Jose Murillo-Prado v. Eric Holder, Jr., 735 F.3d 1152

Petitioner Jose Luis Murillo-Prado, a lawful permanent resident admitted in 1989, was charged in removal proceedings based on a 2006 Arizona conviction for "Illegally Conducting an Enterprise" (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2301) and a three-year sentence.
DHS alleged that the Arizona racketeering conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J) (an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 with ≥1 year sentence), making Murillo-Prado removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal.
At the Immigration Judge (IJ) hearing the IJ sustained the aggravated-felony charge based on the record of conviction and ordered removal; Murillo-Prado appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The BIA applied the modified categorical approach and concluded the record (indictment, plea agreement, sentencing order) showed Murillo-Prado pleaded to racketeering conduct that corresponds to predicate offenses listed in the federal RICO definition, qualifying as an aggravated felony.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the offense qualifies as an aggravated felony, held the record provided clear and convincing evidence that the conviction fits § 1101(a)(43)(J), and dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Murillo-Prado's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Murillo-Prado's Arizona racketeering conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(J)	The record is ambiguous as to which subsection of the divisible Arizona statute he violated, so DHS failed to "establish unequivocally" that the conviction matches a federal RICO offense	The plea, indictment (Count 2), and sentencing order identify predicate racketeering acts (drug offenses, money laundering, armed robbery) that correspond to federal RICO predicates	The modified categorical approach applies; the record (indictment, plea, sentencing) clearly and convincingly shows the conviction matches federal RICO predicates and thus is an aggravated felony
Whether the Court retains jurisdiction to review Murillo-Prado's petition once an aggravated-felony ground of removability is established	(Implicit) Court should be able to review merits	Jurisdiction is limited by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), but the court may decide its jurisdiction by determining whether the offense is an aggravated felony	Having found the conviction an aggravated felony, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the removal order and dismissed the petition

Lopez-Jacuinde v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional bar to review when alien is removable for committing an aggravated felony)
Cazarez-Gutierrez v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2004) (court retains jurisdiction to determine whether offense falls under jurisdiction-stripping provisions)
Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2011) (de novo review whether conviction is an aggravated felony)
Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (distinguishing categorical and modified categorical approaches for divisible statutes)
Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (clear-and-convincing standard for proving a crime constitutes an aggravated felony)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limited set of documents may be consulted under the modified categorical approach)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical approach focuses on statutory elements, not facts)
Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. 2003) (identifying reviewable documents under modified categorical approach)
Valdavinos-Torres v. United States, 704 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2012) (charging document can be considered with plea agreement to determine the offense of conviction)
Lara-Chacon v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (applying modified categorical approach to Arizona racketeering statute)