914 F.3d 430
6th Cir.2019Background
- Julio Molina Hernandez, a Salvadoran national and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Michigan of felonious assault under MCL § 750.82 after an earlier conviction for assault with intent to rob was vacated. ICE charged removability as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) within five years of admission.
- The IJ found Molina removable, denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief—concluding his conviction was a particularly serious crime and, alternatively, denying relief on the merits. The BIA affirmed and sustained the CIMT finding.
- Molina appealed to the Sixth Circuit, arguing (among other things) that MCL § 750.82 is not a CIMT and that the CIMT concept is unconstitutionally vague.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and noted that the BIA single-member unpublished decision is not entitled to Chevron deference.
- The court relied on its precedent in Hanna v. Holder, concluding that Michigan’s felonious assault statute encompasses conduct that is not a CIMT and thereby held § 750.82 is not a CIMT.
- Because Molina is not removable based on a CIMT conviction, the court reversed the BIA and remanded; his asylum/withholding/CAT claims were rendered moot and were not decided on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether felonious assault under MCL § 750.82 is a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) for removability | Molina: § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT because it covers conduct (e.g., intent to instill fear) that lacks morally turpitudinous intent | Government: The statute’s dangerous-weapon element elevates the offense to a CIMT | Held: § 750.82 is not a CIMT; Molina is not removable on that basis |
| Whether the BIA’s unpublished single-member decision merits Chevron deference | Molina: BIA single-member, unpublished decisions are not precedential or entitled to Chevron | Government: BIA determination should control removability | Held: No Chevron deference to the single-member unpublished BIA decision; court reviews de novo |
| Whether Hanna v. Holder controls interpretation of § 750.82 | Molina: Hanna held § 750.82 is not categorically a CIMT and thus controls | Government/IJ: Hanna did not definitively resolve divisibility/CIMT status or is distinguishable | Held: Hanna controls—court reads Hanna as recognizing § 750.82 encompasses non-CIMT conduct |
| Effect of later decisions about divisibility on Hanna’s holding | Government/IJ: Later cases treat § 750.82 as indivisible, undermining Hanna’s divisibility analysis | Molina: Even if indivisible, Hanna’s substantive conclusion that the statute covers non-CIMT conduct stands | Held: Divisibility issue irrelevant to result; court concludes § 750.82 is not a CIMT even if indivisible |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanna v. Holder, 740 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2014) (held Michigan felonious assault statute encompasses offenses that are not CIMTs)
- Lockhart v. Napolitano, 753 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2014) (unpublished single-member BIA decisions are not entitled to Chevron deference)
- Ruiz-Lopez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2012) (term "crime of moral turpitude" is ambiguous for Chevron analysis)
- United States v. Harris, 853 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2017) (treating MCL § 750.82 as indivisible in the federal sentencing context)
- Lovano v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 815 (6th Cir. 2017) (applies categorical approach when assessing whether state statute constitutes a CIMT)