Rodriguez-Heredia v. Holder
639 F.3d 1264
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Rodriguez-Heredia, a Mexican citizen, entered the United States without inspection.
- On May 6, 2009, he pled guilty to identity fraud under Utah Code § 76-6-1102 for using another’s Social Security number to obtain employment.
- He faced removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) and sought cancellation of removal and release from detention.
- An IJ denied the request for release; the BIA dismissed his appeal regarding custody status and later deemed him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
- The BIA held the Utah statute constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude under both categorical and modified categorical approaches.
- The Ninth? court treated No. 10-9531 as moot due to Rodriguez’s release and removal; No. 10-9540 was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Utah § 76-6-1102 categorically involve moral turpitude? | Rodriguez-Heredia argues no moral turpitude due to value element and lack of fraudulent intent in some applications. | Government contends all fraud crimes inherently involve moral turpitude; Utah statute reaches fraud with intent in all cases. | Yes; statute describes moral turpitude under the categorical approach. |
| Was the identity-fraud conviction also a crime involving moral turpitude under the modified categorical approach? | Rodriguez-Heredia contends the facts do not show turpitude beyond the statute’s language. | Government urges that plea and record evidence fraudulent intent and value to sustain turpitude. | Yes; the plea and presentence materials show fraudulent intent and value, sustaining turpitude. |
| Is No. 10-9531 moot and thus dismissible? | Rodriguez-Heredia seeks relief from detention and potential bond issues. | Detention has ended; removal occurred, so the appeal concerns non-final or moot relief. | Moot; petition dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (categorical approach to crimes involving moral turpitude)
- Hamilton v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2009) (modified categorical approach; use of Shepard materials)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005) (limits on evidence used in modified approach)
- Wittgenstein v. INS, 124 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 1997) (moral turpitude of fraud-based crimes)
- Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 572 F.3d 824 (10th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction to review constitutional/legal questions in removal proceedings)
- Kechkar v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 1080 (10th Cir. 2007) (final agency determination review in cancellation cases)
- Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2006) (agency decision reviewed as final when certiorari claims are present)
- Ferry v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 1117 (10th Cir. 2006) (mootness and detention-release context for removal decisions)