Background

• Ortega-Lopez, Mexican national, present in the U.S. without admission or parole; 2009 federal conviction for sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) with one year probation.
• DHS charged him as removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and sought cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b).
• Immigration Judge pretermitted cancellation eligibility, concluding he was ineligible under § 240A(b)(1)(C) due to conviction under § 1227(a)(2)/(3).
• Respondent appealed, arguing the § 2156(a)(1) conviction is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
• Board held that § 2156(a)(1) is categorically a CIMT because it involves knowing sponsorship/exhibition for fighting and entails reprehensible conduct; appeal dismissed.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012) (categorical CIMT analysis; real-world application required)
• Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 193 (S. Ct. 2007) (requires realistic probability of non-CIMT application)
• Matter of Cortes Medina, 26 I&N Dec. 79 (BIA 2013) (applies evolving morality standard in CIMT analysis)
• Matter of Ajami, 22 I&N Dec. 949 (BIA 1999) (defines CIMT as base, vile conduct with culpable mental state)
• Gill v. INS, 420 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2005) (knowingly/intentional crimes generally CIMT under categorical approach)
• Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (knowledgeable/intentional crimes often CIMT under categorical approach)
• United States v. Gibert, 677 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2012) (animal fighting statute’s evolving prohibitions and moral stance)
• United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010) (discussed in moral turpitude/animal cruelty context)