Leonardo Villegas-Sarabia v. Jefferson Sessions, I
874 F.3d 871
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Leonardo Villegas-Sarabia was born in Mexico in 1974 to unmarried parents; his father (Villegas) was a U.S. citizen who had not met the residency requirements in force at the time of birth to transmit citizenship (ten years’ physical presence, five after age 14).
- Villegas-Sarabia became a lawful permanent resident as a child and later was convicted of firearms and misprision offenses; DHS initiated removal proceedings based on the firearms conviction.
- At immigration proceedings the IJ concluded misprision of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 4) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), making Villegas-Sarabia inadmissible and ineligible to adjust status because an aggravated-felony conviction barred the § 1182(h) waiver.
- The BIA adopted the IJ’s findings, affirmed that misprision is a CIMT, and dismissed the constitutional equal-protection challenge as beyond its jurisdictional reach on the record.
- The district court (on habeas) held the sex-based difference between 8 U.S.C. §§ 1401 and 1409(c) violated equal protection and remedied it by extending § 1409(c)’s one-year maternal exception to fathers, declaring Villegas-Sarabia a U.S. citizen.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed both the BIA’s CIMT determination and the district court’s constitutional ruling/remedy; it affirmed the BIA on CIMT but reversed the district court’s remedy and citizenship grant under controlling Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misprision of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 4) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) | Villegas-Sarabia: misprision is not categorically a CIMT (pointing to Ninth Circuit decision) | Government: misprision requires affirmative concealment/deceit and thus is a CIMT; BIA’s view entitled to deference | Court: Affirmed BIA; misprision necessarily entails deceit and is a CIMT; petition for review denied |
| Whether the differing physical-presence requirements for unwed mothers (§ 1409(c)) and fathers (§ 1401(a)(7)) violate equal protection | Villegas-Sarabia: the one-year maternal exception is sex-discriminatory and unconstitutional | Government: initially defended statute; on appeal acknowledged control by Supreme Court precedent | Court: Agreed with district court; equal-protection violation under Sessions v. Morales-Santana |
| Proper remedy for the equal-protection violation: extend § 1409(c)’s one-year exception to fathers (district court's remedy) | Villegas-Sarabia: district court may extend the one-year rule or otherwise afford citizenship relief (and argued for applying current five-year rule) | Government: remedy should follow Morales-Santana; district court exceeded authority by rewriting § 1409(c) to include fathers | Court: Reversed district court; under Morales-Santana the proper interim remedy is to eliminate the discriminatory benefit prospectively (apply the general residency rule), not extend the one-year exception to fathers |
| Whether Morales-Santana’s change in statutory interpretation applies retroactively to confer citizenship under the current five-year rule | Villegas-Sarabia: current § 1401(g) five-year rule should be applied to cure the defect and make him a citizen | Government: Morales-Santana did not rewrite the statutory regime retroactively; birth-era statute governs | Court: Rejected retroactive application; citizenship governed by statute in effect at birth (ten-year rule), so Villegas-Sarabia does not acquire citizenship |
Key Cases Cited
- Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 137 S. Ct. 1678 (Sup. Ct.) (sex-based distinction in transmission of citizenship violates equal protection; remedy discussion)
- Patel v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 800 (5th Cir.) (misprision requires affirmative concealment/entails deceit)
- Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.) (misprision is a CIMT because it involves dishonest concealment)
- Robles-Urrea v. Holder, 678 F.3d 702 (9th Cir.) (held misprision is not categorically a CIMT)
- Hyder v. Keisler, 506 F.3d 388 (5th Cir.) (definition and tests for moral turpitude; crimes involving dishonesty are CIMTs)