Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820
9th Cir.2011Background
- Petitioner Maria Lopez-Birrueta, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. illegally in 1994 at age 14 and was later subject to removal proceedings.
- She sought special-rule cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A) on the basis that she is the parent of children battered by their lawful permanent resident father, Campos.
- Campos abused the children by frequent beatings with a stick, occurring two to three times weekly, while the children were young, and the abuse occurred in the presence of others.
- An IJ found Lopez-Birrueta credible but concluded she failed to prove battery or extreme cruelty; the BIA adopted this and added its own reasons for lack of battery.
- The BIA and IJ relied on regulatory definitions of battery and extreme cruelty that they interpreted to include the abuse, but Lopez-Birrueta argued those definitions either do not cover her situation or require broader application.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the evidence shows battery under the statute and remanding for consideration of remaining eligibility factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Lopez-Birrueta's claim fall within battery or extreme cruelty under VAWA? | Lopez-Birrueta asserts the children were battered by Campos, satisfying §1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(II). | Denying that the abuse by Campos constitutes battery under the statute as applied to a non-marital parent. | Yes; the court held the children were battered by Campos under the statute. |
| Are the regulatory definitions of battery applicable to Lopez-Birrueta's non-marital, parent-of-abused-child situation? | Definitions extend to the relevant circumstances and should apply here. | The definitions do not neatly fit Lopez-Birrueta's situation and should be read narrowly. | The court held the definitions apply by extension to Lopez-Birrueta's circumstances. |
| Did the BIA and IJ err by importing a state-law notion of injury (California) into the federal battery standard? | Importing state-law injury concepts is inappropriate for federal VAWA standards. | The California definition provides a reasonable interpretation of injury for battery purposes. | The court held the BIA erred in importing California’s injury definition. |
| Did the BIA commit other legal errors in its interpretation of battery and extreme cruelty? | BIA erred in relying on Burbano and misapplying regulatory text. | BIA appropriately applied the agency’s framework and standards. | Yes; the BIA committed several legal errors, warranting remand. |
| Should the case be remanded for consideration of the remaining eligibility requirements for relief? | Relief should be considered in light of the battery finding and proper standard. | Additional issues may be addressed on remand as needed. | Yes; the petition is granted and the case is remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (ameliorative purpose of VAWA; protective interpretation)
- Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing IJ error when BIA adopts IJ determination)
- Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994) (regulatory framework for VAWA battery definitions)
- Kyong Ho Shin v. Holder, 607 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for reviewing BIA legal determinations)