Pedro Cano-Oyarzabal v. Eric Holder, Jr.
774 F.3d 914
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cano-Oyarzabal, a Mexican citizen, entered the U.S. without authorization in 2002.
- He pled guilty in Wisconsin state court on Aug. 2, 2011 to operating a vehicle to flee or elude a police officer under Wis. Stat. § 346.04(3).
- DHS served a Notice to Appear about a year later charging him as inadmissible and as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).
- The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals concluded the Wisconsin conviction was for a CIMT, and Cano-Oyarzabal sought review in the Seventh Circuit.
- The analysis focuses on whether the Board properly classified the conviction as a CIMT and the appropriate standard of review, with jurisdictional notes discussed but not dispositive for the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly classified the Wisconsin conviction as a CIMT. | Cano-Oyarzabal argues the classification should be limited by Silva-Trevino and record-based inquiry. | Board used a categorical approach and Chevron deference, relying on Ruiz-Lopez and Mei to classify the offense. | Yes; the Board’s categorical classification was reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference. |
| Whether Chevron deference applies to the Board’s CIMT determination. | Cano-Oyarzabal contends Skidmore deference should apply since the Board relied on non-binding reasoning. | Board engaged in independent analysis with precedents; Chevron deference applies to its rule-based determination. | Chevron deference applies to the Board’s determination. |
| Whether the Board’s reliance on prior Board/Mei-type precedent was proper in applying Silva-Trevino. | Advocates that Mei-based distinction and allowing record-based inquiry should govern. | Board properly applied Silva-Trevino framework and precedent to conclude CIMT categorically. | Appropriate application of Silva-Trevino framework supported CIMT classification. |
| Whether recent Supreme Court decisions (Moncrieffe, Descamps) affect the standard used. | Cano-Oyarzabal argues those decisions displace Silva-Trevino’s framework. | Court need not reach Moncrieffe/Descamps since the Board’s categorical ruling stands. | Court did not reach Moncrieffe/Descamps, affirming the Board’s categorical ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanchez v. Holder, 757 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2014) (review of Board’s legal determinations on CIMT; general framework cited)
- Ali v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (distinguishes malum in se vs malum prohibitum and supports deference for moral turpitude determinations)
- Mei v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2004) (affirms Morales-Trevino framework and relevance of maning rea in CIMT analysis)
- Ghani v. Holder, 557 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2009) (affirms giving Chevron deference to agency interpretations of CIMT)
- Welch v. United States, 604 F.3d 408 (7th Cir. 2010) (remarks on knowledge and intent in fleeing scenarios for moral turpitude)
- Sykes v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2267 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (discusses risk and falsified intent in flight from police)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (illustrates deferential review of agency interpretations)
- Beamon, 830 N.W.2d 681 (Wis. 2013) (Wisconsin precedent on knowledge requirement for fleeing/eluding)