Manuel Mondragon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
706 F.3d 535
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mondragón, a Salvadoran national, entered the United States illegally in 1990 and is removable.
- He previously obtained temporary protected status and has three U.S.-born children.
- In 1996 he pleaded guilty to Virginia misdemeanor assault and battery, receiving a one-year sentence suspended; record lacks detailed conduct.
- NACARA relief requires not having been convicted of an aggravated felony, defined at the relevant time as a crime of violence with a sentence of at least one year.
- IIRIRA later defined aggravated felony to include a crime of violence with a one-year minimum and made it retroactive to actions after enactment.
- At removal, the government argued the 1996 Virginia conviction was an aggravated felony, disqualifying Mondragón from NACARA relief; the IJ and BIA denied relief and Mondragón appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity and due process of IIRIRA’s definition | Mondragón argues retroactive definition violates due process and St. Cyr fairness concerns. | Government contends retroactivity has rational basis and no due process entitlement to discretionary NACARA relief. | Retroactivity withstands constitutional scrutiny; no due process violation. |
| Proper standard to determine if conviction is a crime of violence | Mondragón seeks broader evidence (affidavit) beyond the conviction record to show nonviolence. | BIA correctly applied the modified categorical approach focusing on the record of conviction and its elements. | BIA’s use of the modified categorical approach was correct. |
| Right to present extrinsic evidence when the conviction record is inconclusive | Extrinsic evidence should be allowed to prove nonviolence of conduct underlying conviction. | Extrinsic evidence is not permitted when the issue is whether the conviction falls within the aggravated-felony category. | Extrinsic evidence not required; the modified categorical approach remains proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (discretionary relief generally not a due-process entitlement; retroactivity analysis depends on statute)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical approach for predicate offenses; avoid mini-trials; focus on conviction and elements)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) ( Shepard documents used to apply the modified categorical approach)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) (extrinsic factors distinguished; focuses on certain statutory considerations)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (finality of prior convictions; limits collateral challenges in sentencing/immigration contexts)
- Daniels v. United States, 532 U.S. 374 (2001) (finality of convictions; cannot collaterally attack prior conviction used for enhancements)
- Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111 (2011) (reaffirmed limits on adducing additional evidence when conviction record is inconclusive)