McKenzy Alfred v. Merrick Garland, 13 F.4th 980

Petitioner McKenzy Alii Alfred, a Palauan national admitted under the Compact of Free Association, pled guilty in Washington to one count of second‑degree robbery and two counts of attempted second‑degree robbery and received concurrent 15‑month sentences.
The factual record showed Alfred acted alone (took money from a teller/coffee kiosk and attempted a carjacking); there was no evidence he was an accomplice.
DHS charged Alfred as removable based on an aggravated‑felony theft offense under INA § 1101(a)(43)(G) (theft/burglary with imprisonment ≥1 year); the IJ found removability relying on this circuit’s Alvarado‑Pineda decision.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s determination that the Washington robbery statute categorically matched the INA theft definition, making Alfred removable.
On review, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded it was bound by United States v. Valdivia‑Flores, which held Washington’s accomplice/aiding‑and‑abetting mens rea (knowledge) is broader than the federal requirement (specific intent), so Washington statutes are overbroad for categorical‑match purposes.
Applying Valdivia‑Flores, the court held Alfred’s convictions do not qualify as aggravated felonies under INA §§ 1101(a)(43)(G),(U) and granted the petition, remanding to the agency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WA second‑degree robbery and attempted robbery are aggravated felonies under INA §1101(a)(43)(G)/(U)	Alfred: his convictions do not match the INA generic theft offense; accomplice liability should not be imputed because he acted alone; Valdivia‑Flores precludes a categorical match	Government: Alvarado‑Pineda controls and holds the WA robbery statute is a categorical match to generic theft, so convictions are aggravated felonies	Held: Court, bound by Valdivia‑Flores, ruled WA accomplice mens rea (knowledge) is broader than federal specific intent; no categorical match; convictions are not aggravated felonies
Whether Valdivia‑Flores applies when comparing a state statute to a judicially defined generic theft offense (as opposed to a federal statutory analogue)	Alfred: Valdivia‑Flores applies and companion‑accomplice analysis defeats categorical match	Government: Distinguishes Valdivia‑Flores because it compared state law to a federal statutory offense; Alvarado‑Pineda governs here	Held: Valdivia‑Flores governs; no authority shows the distinction matters; accomplice liability analysis ends inquiry and defeats categorical match

United States v. Valdivia‑Flores, 876 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2017) (held Washington aiding‑and‑abetting mens rea is broader than federal specific intent, precluding categorical match)
United States v. Alvarado‑Pineda, 774 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2014) (panel held Washington robbery statute matched generic theft for INA purposes)
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (describes categorical approach for immigration removability analysis)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (explains categorical approach comparing statutory elements to a generic offense)
Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (discusses limits of the categorical approach and state/federal element comparisons)
Esquivel‑Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (reinforces element‑focused categorical inquiry)
United States v. Corona‑Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoted Ninth Circuit definition of generic theft)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976) (court need not decide unnecessary alternative grounds)