Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder
645 F.3d 1035
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Ramirez-Villalpando, a Mexican citizen, was a lawful permanent resident since 1961.
- In 1986 he faced immigration proceedings and received § 212(c) relief, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
- In 2006 he pled guilty to grand theft of personal property (Cal. Penal Code § 487(a)) and receiving stolen property (Cal. Penal Code § 496(a)).
- Abstract of judgment listed Grand Theft of Pers Prop under § 487(a) and stated concurrent 16-month terms.
- The government sought removal as an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) (theft or burglary with sentence of at least one year).
- The BIA applied the modified categorical approach, relying on the record to determine the specific crime pled to and concluded the offense qualified as an aggravated felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Ramirez-Villalpando's § 487(a) grand theft qualify as an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach? | Ramirez-Villalpando contends § 487(a) is broader than generic theft. | The government argues the record shows he pled to a generic theft of personal property. | Yes for plaintiff; the court held not categorically an aggravated felony, but proceeded to the modified approach to determine specifics. |
| Did the record prove Ramirez-Villalpando pled guilty to grand theft of personal property, not labor? | Abstract/record supports grand theft of personal property. | Record ambiguities exist about whether labor was involved. | Record, including the abstract, felony complaint, and plea transcript, supported grand theft of personal property (not labor). |
| May the abstract of judgment be relied upon, with other documents, to establish the nature of the conviction under the modified approach? | Abstract alone is insufficient per Navidad-Marcos; need corroboration. | Intent is to use reliable documents; corroboration improves certainty. | Combined with charging document and plea transcript, the abstract was reliable enough to establish the conviction as grand theft of personal property. |
| Is collateral attack on the state-court conviction permissible in this petition for review of a BIA decision? | If valid, Ramirez-Villalpando could challenge the conviction itself. | Collateral attack is barred in this procedural posture. | Collateral attack barred; the conviction's validity under state law was not before the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez-Perez v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2005) (defined generic theft for purposes of aggravated felonies)
- Corona-Sanchez v. United States, 291 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2002) (defined generic theft in the context of the modified categorical approach)
- Espinoza-Cano v. United States, 456 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (articulated application of Taylor in the Ninth Circuit)
- Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussed supporting documents in modified categorical approach)
- Narvaez-Gomez v. United States, 489 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2007) (permitted reliance on multiple documents with abstract of judgment)
- Velasco-Medina v. United States, 305 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2002) (held abstract of judgment plus information can prove elements of a generic crime)
- Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) (emphasized agency court review uses Board’s reasoning over separate evidence)