Olivas-Motta v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 26128
9th Cir.2013Background
- Olivas-Motta is a lawful permanent resident facing removal under §1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for two CIMTs; he concedes the first CIMT (2003 Arizona marijuana possession) but disputes the second (2007 endangerment).
- The IJ relied on outside records (police reports) to conclude the second CIMT; the BIA affirmed.
- Matter of Silvar-Trevino (A.G. 2008) allowed outside-record evidence to determine “convicted of” a CIMT; Olivas-Motta petitions for review.
- This circuit rejects Silvar-Trevino, holding IJ/BIA must use only the record of conviction to determine CIMT conviction.
- Nijhawan v. Holder and Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder are used to analyze whether CIMT involves an element and whether circumstantial evidence may be used.
- The court remands for proceedings consistent with this opinion; it does not decide post-remand issues about categorically CIMT status of the Arizona endangerment statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Silvar-Trevino correctly allows outside-conviction evidence | Olivas-Motta argues Silvar-Trevino misreads “convicted of” CIMT | Government relies on Silvar-Trevino’s three-step framework | Silvar-Trevino wrongly decided; outside-record evidence not permissible |
| Whether CIMT convicts may be determined only from the record of conviction | Record-only approach governs CIMT conviction determinations | Agency may consider outside evidence per Silvar-Trevino | Yes, IJ/BIA must limit to record of conviction (rejected Silvar-Trevino) |
| Whether ‘moral turpitude’ is an element of CIMT requiring the record of conviction | Moral turpitude is an element; look to record of conviction | Moral turpitude not an element; may use broader inquiry | Moral turpitude is an element of CIMT; IJ constrained to the record of conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004) (limits look to conviction, not conduct, under removal provisions)
- Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (circumstance-specific inquiry; loss as a circumstance not element)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (uncharged conduct cannot be used to augment conviction; focus on conviction)
- Jean-Louis v. Attorney Gen., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2009) (CIMT is a term of art; record of conviction governs)
- Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (plain language of CIMT not ambiguous; conviction-focused)
- Fajardo v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (agrees CIMT is a record-of-conviction issue)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (two questions: fact of conviction; classification may require more)
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (ambiguous CIMT phrase requires deference to BIA when appropriate)
- In re Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008) (AG framed three-step approach for CIMT)