Luis Mendoza-Saenz v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
861 F.3d 720
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Saenz, a Mexican national who entered without inspection in 1998, was charged in Minnesota with Aggravated Forgery after officers found multiple resident cards and IDs at his home.
- In November 2012 Saenz entered a state diversion program requiring 40 hours community service, restitution, and payment of a $480 fee (payable even if terminated); the aggravated forgery charge was later dismissed after he completed the program.
- DHS placed Saenz in removal proceedings in 2013; he conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal and, alternatively, voluntary departure.
- The IJ found Saenz’s participation in the diversion program constituted a conviction for immigration purposes (a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude), making him ineligible for cancellation or voluntary departure; the BIA affirmed.
- The core factual findings: Saenz admitted facts sufficient for guilt; the court continued the case to permit diversion and imposed conditions (community service, restitution, $480 fee), and the record shows the court pronounced those conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Saenz’s diversion disposition constitutes a "conviction" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48) (thus disqualifying him from cancellation of removal as a CIMT) | Saenz: The diversion program obligations are not a judicially imposed penalty and therefore do not create a immigration "conviction." | Government: Admission of sufficient facts plus court-ordered penalties (probation/community service/fines) satisfy § 1101(a)(48) and constitute a conviction. | Held: The admission plus court-imposed obligations are a conviction under § 1101(a)(48); Saenz is ineligible for cancellation. |
| Whether the diversion program obligations were ordered by a judge (i.e., whether penalties were judicially imposed) | Saenz: Penalties arose from diversion agreement, not a judicial sentence. | Government: Court continued the case and explicitly ordered community service and payment; court warned of collection—so penalties were imposed by the judge. | Held: Record shows the state court pronounced the sentence and imposed conditions; penalties are court-ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matul-Hernandez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 707 (8th Cir.) (describing standard of review for BIA decisions)
- Crespo v. Holder, 631 F.3d 130 (4th Cir.) (Chevron/deference framework for ambiguous immigration statutes)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (court defers to reasonable agency interpretation when statute ambiguous)
- Herrera-Inirio v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 299 (1st Cir.) (admission + deferred adjudication can constitute conviction for immigration purposes)
- De Vega v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (restitution and related obligations can be penalties for immigration conviction analysis)
- Singh v. Holder, 568 F.3d 525 (5th Cir.) (judgment is imposed at sentencing; court-imposed conditions can create conviction)