Ruben Ceron v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5891
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Petitioner Ruben Adolfo Cerón (El Salvador native, LPR) pleaded nolo contendere in California (2006) to assault with a deadly weapon, Cal. Penal Code § 245(a)(1).
- State court suspended prison, imposed 36 months probation with a 364‑day county jail condition (364 days served).
- DHS charged removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) as a "crime involving moral turpitude" (CIMT) for which a sentence of ≥1 year may be imposed.
- The IJ and BIA found the offense removable: (1) § 245(a)(1) permits a sentence of one year or longer; (2) the offense categorically is a CIMT.
- Ninth Circuit en banc: majority grants petition, holds the § 245(a)(1) sentence‑length question decided for the government but remands to the BIA for initial categorical CIMT analysis in light of intervening precedent and changes in California law.
Issues
| Issue | Cerón's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 245(a)(1) is a "crime for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed" | Statutory maximum depends on wobbler status; Cerón argued misdemeanor max could be <1 year | § 245(a)(1) authorizes up to 4 years (felony) or up to 1 year (misdemeanor) — either meets ≥1 year | Held for government: whether felony or misdemeanor, statute permits a sentence of one year or longer; earlier Ninth Circuit precedent misstated California law and is overruled |
| Whether a § 245(a)(1) conviction categorically is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) | The statute’s elements (general intent; no required contact or injury) mean it may cover conduct that is not morally turpitudinous; categorical match is uncertain | BIA and prior Ninth Circuit decisions (e.g., Barber / In re G‑R‑) treated assault with a deadly weapon as a CIMT | Court remanded to BIA to decide in first instance whether § 245(a)(1) categorically constitutes a CIMT, because prior precedent relied on pre‑categorical‑approach reasoning and California law developments affect the mens rea analysis |
| Whether Ninth Circuit should defer to BIA on CIMT issue | N/A — Cerón sought review of BIA’s CIMT conclusion | BIA expertise should control categorical CIMT determinations | Court emphasized deference to BIA on remand (Chevron for published decisions; Skidmore for unpublished) |
| Precedential effect of prior Ninth Circuit/BIA decisions (Barber, In re G‑R‑, Carr) | N/A — Cerón challenged removability based on current law | BIA relied on older precedents that examined facts or other states’ statutes | Court held Barber and In re G‑R‑ are no longer good law for the categorical CIMT proposition and overruled limited Ninth Circuit decisions that misstated California misdemeanor maxima |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (announcing the categorical approach for comparing statutory elements)
- Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254 (2013) (distinguishing divisible statutes and use of the modified categorical approach)
- Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951) (survey of judicial decisions about "moral turpitude," holding fraud‑type crimes involve moral turpitude)
- United States v. Barber, 207 F.2d 398 (9th Cir. 1953) (earlier Ninth Circuit holding that assault with a deadly weapon is a CIMT; majority here limits/overrules that precedent)
- People v. Williams, 26 Cal.4th 779 (2001) (California Supreme Court clarifying the mens rea/intent required for assault)
- Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) (illustrating application of categorical approach in immigration/criminal contexts)