Patel v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2315
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Patel, a 28-year-old Indian native and U.S. permanent resident since 1998, pled guilty in Connecticut to conspiracy to commit larceny arising from a dorm-room theft scheme.
- The plea involved six counts: three for misdemeanor larceny under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-125 and three for misdemeanor criminal trespass under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-108, with a suspended sentence and probation.
- The conduct included entering unlocked dorm rooms and taking items like electronics, clothing, and DVDs after encountering residents or when doors were unlocked.
- The crimes led to Immigration Judge and BIA determinations that Patel was removable as a CIMT under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and Patel sought relief from removal.
- The BIA on remand maintained removability and denied a waiver, while Patel challenged the BIA’s reasoning and application of the modified categorical approach.
- The First Circuit granted Patel’s petition, holding the BIA erred in inferring permanent deprivation from the conviction record and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the offenses are CIMTs under the modified categorical approach. | Patel argues the record does not show permanent deprivation, so offenses may not be CIMTs. | Government argues the record supports permanent deprivation under the larceny statute. | Remanded; BIA erred in inferring permanent deprivation from the record. |
| Whether the BIA can adjudicate guilt by inferring intent from the record of conviction. | Record does not establish which prong of the larceny statute was convicted. | BIA’s reasoning permissible under modified categorical approach to identify the crime. | BIA erred; cannot bridge the gap from offense to conduct; Patel not shown removable under CIMT at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wala v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2007) (cannot infer permanent deprivation from conviction record under modified categorical approach)
- Akinsade v. Holder, 678 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2012) (limits BIA’s inferences about intent from the record of conviction)
- Campbell v. Holder, 698 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2012) (modified categorical approach; focus on crime of conviction, not underlying conduct)
- Conteh v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2006) (CIMT framework context and intent considerations)
- Da Silva Neto v. Holder, 680 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2012) (defers to BIA for CIMT interpretation; limits review to reasonable interpretations)