Obregon de Leon v. Holder
808 F.3d 1224
10th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Cristian Eduardo Obregon de Leon, a Guatemalan national, entered without inspection (1997) and adjusted to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status in 2007 under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.
- In 2011 he pleaded guilty in Oklahoma to multiple offenses including operation of a chop shop, altering VINs, possession of stolen vehicles (Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 4‑103), and receipt of stolen property.
- DHS charged him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT); the IJ and a one‑judge BIA panel found his convictions were CIMTs.
- The IJ and BIA also concluded § 1182(h) barred him from applying for a discretionary waiver because he had previously become an LPR (the BIA relied on Matter of Koljenovic and related precedent).
- Obregon appealed, challenging (1) whether his convictions are CIMTs (disputing the required mens rea) and (2) whether § 1182(h)’s bar applies to aliens who adjusted to LPR status after entry.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed removability based on the stolen‑vehicle conviction (knowledge is the mens rea) but held Obregon is eligible to apply for a § 1182(h) waiver because § 1182(h) does not bar post‑entry status adjustees from seeking relief; the case was remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Obregon's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions (possession/receipt of stolen goods) are crimes involving moral turpitude | Requires intent to permanently deprive; mere knowledge is insufficient | Knowledge that property is stolen suffices | Possession of a stolen vehicle (Oklahoma §4‑103) is a CIMT; knowledge is the relevant mens rea |
| Whether § 1182(h) bars aliens who adjusted to LPR status after entry from applying for waivers | §1182(h) does not apply to post‑entry adjustees; only those admitted as LPRs at entry are barred | §1182(h) ambiguous; agency precedent treated adjusted LPRs as barred | §1182(h) does not bar aliens who adjusted status after entry (Obregon eligible to apply for waiver) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (categorical approach: presume conviction rests on least conduct criminalized)
- Medina‑Rosales v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2015) (§1182(h) bars only those admitted as LPRs at entry; post‑entry adjustees not barred)
- Michel v. INS, 206 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2000) (corrupt scienter central to moral turpitude analysis)
- Castillo‑Cruz v. Holder, 581 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (contrasting view: receipt of stolen property is a CIMT only if intent to permanently deprive is required)
- Efagene v. Holder, 642 F.3d 918 (10th Cir. 2011) (defer to BIA on ambiguous INA terms; define CIMT as malum in se conduct)