Manuel Cano v. U.S. Attorney General
709 F.3d 1052
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Cano, a Bolivian native and lawful permanent resident since 1999, was charged with removal for two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, one being a 2003 Florida conviction for resisting an officer with violence under Fla. Stat. § 843.01.
- Cano pleaded guilty to crimes in 2003 and 2010, and in early 2011 DHS notified him of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii).
- The IJ concluded that Fla. § 843.01 is a crime involving moral turpitude and ordered Cano deported; the BIA affirmed.
- Cano contends Fla. § 843.01 is not a CIMT, arguing the statute does not require intentional violence beyond resisting arrest.
- The court reviews de novo statutory interpretation of CIMTs with deference to the BIA if reasonable, applying the categorical approach to the offense elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Fla. § 843.01 a crime involving moral turpitude under the categorical approach? | Cano argues § 843.01 is not a CIMT. | BIA/agency maintains § 843.01 is a CIMT. | Yes, § 843.01 is a CIMT. |
| Does § 843.01 require intentional violence for moral turpitude purposes? | Intent element applies only to resisting arrest, not violence. | Statutory language shows intent applies to offering or doing violence as well. | § 843.01 involves intent to violence; it is a general intent crime. |
| Does Cano's 2003 conviction together with another CIMT satisfy the two-or-more CIMTs requirement for removal? | Argues not clearly two CIMTs under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). | Cano's 2003 CIMT plus another CIMT satisfy the predicate. | Yes, two or more CIMTs satisfy removal under § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). |
Key Cases Cited
- Fajardo v. United States Att’y Gen., 659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (addressed de novo review and BIA deferential standard for CIMTs)
- Sosa-Martinez v. United States Att’y Gen., 420 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005) (applied categorical approach for CIMT determination)
- Keungne v. United States Att’y Gen., 561 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (explained least-culpable conduct under the categorical approach)
- Romo-Villalobos v. United States, 674 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (held Fla. § 843.01 is a crime of violence; relevant to CIMT analysis)
- United States v. Gloria, 494 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1974) (defined moral turpitude)
- Matter of Danesh, 19 I. & N. Dec. 669 (BIA 1988) (cited for defining morality/valence of conduct for CIMT)
- Frey v. State, 708 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1998) (held § 843.01 is a general intent crime)
- Yarusso v. State, 942 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (discussed elements of Fla. § 843.01 in Florida courts)