Max Villatoro v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
760 F.3d 872
8th Cir.2014Background
- Villatoro, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. without inspection and pleaded guilty in 1999 to tampering with records under Iowa Code § 715A.5.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2006; Villatoro conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
- The IJ denied cancellation, concluding Villatoro’s Iowa tampering conviction was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), making him statutorily ineligible.
- Villatoro appealed to the BIA, arguing § 715A.5 covers non-fraudulent, non-turpitudinous conduct and that the modified categorical approach should be applied to his record.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, finding (1) fraud-related offenses are categorically CIMTs, (2) § 715A.5 requires knowing conduct and intent to deceive, injure, or conceal wrongdoing, and (3) Villatoro failed to show a realistic probability the statute is applied to non-turpitudinous conduct.
- The Eighth Circuit denied review, holding the conviction under Iowa § 715A.5 is categorically a CIMT and upholding the BIA’s application of the categorical approach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa § 715A.5 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude | Villatoro: statute criminalizes non-fraudulent acts (e.g., destroying a record to injure) and lacks fraud-specific language, so not categorically a CIMT | Government/BIA: statute requires knowing conduct plus intent to deceive, injure, or conceal wrongdoing—elements aligned with moral turpitude; fraud need not be explicit | Held: § 715A.5 is categorically a CIMT under the categorical approach |
| Whether the modified categorical approach should change the result | Villatoro: record of conviction doesn’t show fraudulent intent; thus, modified approach should show non-turpitudinous conviction | BIA: categorical approach is dispositive; record does not demonstrate realistic probability statute is applied to non-turpitudinous conduct | Held: No need to apply modified approach; Villatoro failed to show realistic probability of non-turpitudinous application |
Key Cases Cited
- Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (fraudulent conduct has consistently been regarded as involving moral turpitude)
- Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (discussing BIA deference, categorical approach, and realistic-probability test)
- Hernandez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 345 (intent/knowledge central to moral turpitude analysis)
- Lateef v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 592 F.3d 926 (crimes with intent to deceive or defraud generally involve moral turpitude)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (categorical approach origins in ACCA precedent)
- Romeo v. Iowa Sup. Ct. Bd. of Prof’l Ethics & Conduct, 554 N.W.2d 552 (Iowa Supreme Court held § 715A.5 conviction "on its face" involves moral turpitude)