Maria Arias v. Loretta E. Lynch
834 F.3d 823
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Maria Eudofilia Arias, an Ecuadorian national who entered the U.S. without authorization in 2000, pleaded guilty to falsely using a Social Security number to work in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B); she received one year probation and a $100 special assessment.
- Arias applied for discretionary cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), which is unavailable to those convicted of a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT).
- The immigration judge and a one‑member Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) panel concluded Arias’s conviction was categorically a CIMT, relying in part on this circuit’s Marin‑Rodriguez decision.
- The BIA mischaracterized § 408(a)(7)(B) by treating it as requiring an intent to wrongfully obtain a benefit, ignoring the statute’s broader "for any other purpose" language.
- Between the BIA decision and this Court’s review, the Attorney General vacated the Silva‑Trevino I three‑step framework the BIA had been using to decide CIMT questions, leaving no authoritative method in place.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conviction under 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) is categorically a "crime involving moral turpitude" | Arias: statute can criminalize non‑fraudulent, non‑vicious conduct (e.g., using a false SSN to obtain medical care or to work/pay taxes), so it is not categorically a CIMT | Government/BIA: statute involves deceit and thus (per circuit precedent) constitutes a CIMT when elements include intent to deceive or defraud | Court: did not decide definitively; doubts every violation is a CIMT and remanded because the BIA misapplied the Silva‑Trevino I framework and authoritative guidance has been vacated |
| Whether the BIA’s methodology complied with governing law | Arias: BIA applied Silva‑Trevino I incorrectly by looking beyond statutory elements without first finding the statute inconclusive; plus Silva‑Trevino I has since been vacated | BIA/Government: relied on Silva‑Trevino I and circuit precedent to examine elements and conclude categorical turpitude | Court: BIA erred in its analysis under Silva‑Trevino I and, given Silva‑Trevino I’s subsequent vacatur, remand required for reconsideration under an appropriate framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (Sup. Ct.) (fraud crimes historically core CIMTs)
- Marin‑Rodriguez v. Holder, 710 F.3d 734 (7th Cir.) (panel holding deception crimes typically turpitudinous; relied on by BIA)
- Beltran‑Tirado v. INS, 213 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir.) (holding § 408(a)(7)(B) use not categorically a CIMT)
- Lagunas‑Salgado v. Holder, 584 F.3d 707 (7th Cir.) (circuit discussion of CIMT and fraud‑centered analysis)
- Padilla v. Gonzales, 397 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir.) (deception/dishonesty crimes tend to be CIMTs but require consideration of harm/intent)
- Abdelqadar v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 668 (7th Cir.) (false statements/deceit can be within core CIMT doctrine)