Peralta Sauceda v. Lynch
804 F.3d 101
1st Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Jose Ricardo Peralta Sauceda, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1993 and pled guilty in Maine (Dec. 11, 2006) to assault under Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17‑A § 207(1)(A).
- DHS served a Notice to Appear in 2007 charging removability; Peralta conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
- The key eligibility question was whether his Maine assault conviction qualified as a federal "crime of domestic violence" under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i); only the statute’s "bodily injury" prong would qualify, whereas the "offensive physical contact" prong would not.
- The record was inconclusive as to which prong Peralta was convicted under; Maine misdemeanor records that might clarify the conviction were unavailable and Peralta said he could not obtain them.
- The IJ found Peralta failed to prove by a preponderance that his conviction was not a crime of domestic violence and pretermitted his cancellation application; the BIA affirmed. Peralta petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Peralta's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an inconclusive conviction record satisfies an alien’s burden to show he was not convicted of a federal "crime of domestic violence" | Peralta: He made good‑faith efforts; absence of records is not his fault, so he should not be penalized | Gov: Burden rests on alien to prove eligibility; an inconclusive record fails to meet preponderance requirement | Court: The alien bears burden; inconclusive records do not satisfy preponderance; petition denied |
| Whether the IJ should treat the conviction under a general assault statute differently because Maine later enacted a domestic violence statute | Peralta: The conviction should be viewed in light of current domestic violence statute | Gov: The later statute is inapplicable to a plea entered earlier | Court: Irrelevant because Maine’s domestic violence statute post‑dates the plea; argument fails |
| Applicability of Matter of Silva‑Trevino to this case | Peralta: Relied on Silva‑Trevino for interpretive guidance | Gov: Silva‑Trevino addresses moral turpitude, not domestic violence classification | Court: Silva‑Trevino is inapposite here |
Key Cases Cited
- Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard of review where BIA adopts and affirms IJ decision)
- Ruci v. Holder, 741 F.3d 239 (1st Cir. 2013) (deference to BIA interpretations of immigration statutes)
- Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (inconclusive record cannot satisfy alien’s burden for relief)
- Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111 (4th Cir. 2011) (holding alien bears burden to disprove mandatory denial grounds when seeking discretionary relief)
- Garcia v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2009) (same: inconclusive records do not meet burden for cancellation of removal)