Robles-Urrea v. Holder
678 F.3d 702
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Robles-Urrea, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2002 to misprision of a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 4, allegedly concealed a conspiracy to distribute marijuana and cocaine.
- In 2005 DHS charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C) as a drug trafficker and under § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for a crime involving moral turpitude.
- The IJ found removability but did not specify the ground; the BIA later held misprision of a felony is a crime involving moral turpitude and interrupted seven years of residency under the stop-time rule.
- Robles-Urrea challenged the BIA decisions; the BIA granted reconsideration and issued a precedential ruling that misprision is a CIMT, which the Ninth Circuit reviewed.
- The court holds misprision of a felony is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude and remands for a modified categorical analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is misprision of a felony categorically a CIMT? | Robles-Urrea: misprision is not categorically a CIMT. | HOLDER: misprision inherently base and depraved, thus a CIMT. | Not categorically a CIMT. |
| Was the BIA's reasoning for misprision as CIMT permissible under INA interpretation? | BIA’s reasoning relies on Itani/Navarro-Lopez; impermissible construction. | BIA properly interpreted CIMT concept to include misprision. | BIA interpretation impermissible; no deference. |
| Should the modified categorical approach be applied to Robles-Urrea's conviction? | Aguila-Montes de Oca permits applying modified CAT; facts may rest on depravity. | AGs arguments support remand for CAT analysis. | Yes; remand for modified categorical analysis. |
| Whether Robles-Urrea is removable under § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) as an illicit drug trafficker may affect relief considerations. | Alternative removability grounds may apply; potential relief issues remaining. | Agency could consider § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) on remand. | Remand to consider § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) and relief eligibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 547 U.S. 183 (2007) (categorical approach, realistic probability standard)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (categorical and modified categorical approaches)
- Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; frameworks for CIMT interpretation and deference)
- Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (definition of moral turpitude; not all serious crimes qualify)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (modified CAT (as applicable to agency fact patterns))
- Aguila-Montes de Oca, 655 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc; explains modified categorical analysis)
- Itani v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2002) (fraud-based CIMT rationale criticized)