Peralta Sauceda v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 526

Background

Peralta Sauceda, a Honduran national who entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1993, pleaded guilty in Maine (2006) to assault against his then-wife under Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A § 207(1)(A) (covers either bodily injury or offensive physical contact).
He conceded removability in 2007 but applied for cancellation of removal, claiming extreme hardship to his U.S.-citizen wife (disabled) and son (with medical/emotional issues).
The IJ found he met hardship and continuous-presence elements but questioned whether his 2006 conviction was a federal "crime of domestic violence," which would bar cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
The Maine record produced (Shepard documents: complaint and judgment) did not identify which prong of the statute he was convicted under; no additional state records were available.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s pretermission of relief for failure to prove he was not convicted of a disqualifying domestic-violence offense; Peralta Sauceda petitioned for review and obtained rehearing relying on Moncrieffe.
The First Circuit held that, under Moncrieffe and related categorical/modified-categorical precedent, where only Shepard documents exist and they are ambiguous, the presumption favoring the least-included conduct applies and the conviction does not qualify as a federal crime of domestic violence as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Peralta Sauceda)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether Peralta Sauceda was "convicted of" a federal "crime of domestic violence" given an ambiguous divisible Maine statute and only Shepard documents	Moncrieffe presumption applies; Shepard record is exhaustive and unrebutted, so conviction cannot be treated as a disqualifying domestic-violence crime	Even if Shepard docs are ambiguous, petitioner bears statutory burden to prove he was not convicted of a disqualifying offense; agency may consider other evidence beyond Shepard docs	Held for Peralta Sauceda: where Shepard documents exhaust the record and are ambiguous, Moncrieffe presumption applies and, as a matter of law, he was not convicted of the disqualifying offense
Whether immigration courts may expand the record beyond Shepard-approved documents to determine the specific prong of a divisible state statute	Courts should be limited to Shepard-approved documents; allowing broader evidence would defeat categorical approach and invite mini-trials	Agency can rely on other evidence (testimony, attorney/judge statements) to ascertain what offense was pleaded to	Held: Only Shepard-approved documents can be used to rebut the least-of-the-acts presumption; courts may not convert the inquiry into evidentiary mini-trials
Whether Moncrieffe applies to cancellation-of-removal eligibility (an exception to removability) as opposed to removability determinations generally	Moncrieffe’s legal presumption governs both removal and relief contexts because statutory hook is identical and question is legal	Moncrieffe concerns removability; here burden of proof for relief is on the alien, so Moncrieffe does not control	Held: Moncrieffe applies equally; the legal definition of "convicted of" is uniform across contexts
Whether the modified categorical approach changes the presumption when Shepard documents are ambiguous	Modified categorical approach is a tool to implement the categorical approach; if Shepard docs cannot identify the prong, presumption stands	Modified approach allows looking to varied evidence to identify the specific offense	Held: Modified categorical approach does not overcome Moncrieffe presumption when the permissible record is exhausted and ambiguous

Key Cases Cited

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (presumption that conviction rests on least-included conduct; analysis applies where Shepard documents do not identify divisible statute prong)
Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (describes modified categorical approach as a tool for divisible statutes)
Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (identifies the limited class of court-documents usable to identify the offense of conviction)
Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133 (2010) (least-of-the-acts presumption in comparing state convictions to generic federal offenses)
Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (foundational justification for categorical approach to prior convictions)
Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122 (2009) (practical purposes of categorical approach to avoid relitigation of past convictions)
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (2010) (discusses significance of the statutory hook "convicted of")