Leonardo Conejo-Bravo v. Jefferson Sessions, 875 F.3d 890

Petitioner Leonardo Conejo-Bravo, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection, was charged in 2005 with felony hit-and-run causing injury (Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(a)) and two related misdemeanors; he pled guilty to all counts and admitted fleeing the scene after an accident that injured another person and failing to render aid.
He was sentenced to 180 days in county jail and three years’ probation.
ICE initiated removal proceedings; Petitioner conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1); the sole adjudicative issue became whether his § 20001(a) conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
The Immigration Judge concluded the conviction was a CIMT under the modified categorical approach based on Petitioner’s plea admissions; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s legal determinations de novo (with Chevron deference for BIA precedential CIMT determinations) and applied the modified categorical approach because § 20001(a) is divisible.
The court held that Petitioner’s conviction—based on an admission of knowingly fleeing after causing injury—qualified as a traditional hit-and-run that is a CIMT, and denied the petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(a) conviction is a CIMT making Petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal	Conejo-Bravo argued § 20001(a) is not categorically a CIMT and that his plea could encompass non-CIMT conduct (e.g., failure to present ID/insurance)	Government argued the statute is divisible and Petitioner’s plea admitted traditional hit-and-run causing injury, which is a CIMT	Held: § 20001(a) is divisible; under the modified categorical approach the plea establishes traditional hit-and-run causing injury, which is a CIMT, so petition denied

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2008) (held § 20001(a) is divisible and not categorically a CIMT)
United States v. Martinez-Lopez, 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (explained divisibility inquiry and application of the modified categorical approach)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (permitted consulting certain documents to identify the offense type under a divisible statute)
Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2013) (describing non-fraudulent CIMTs as involving intent to injure, actual injury, or protected victims)
Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2007) (held hit-and-run with failure to render aid qualifies as a CIMT)