Salvador Cisneros-Guerrerro v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24525
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Cisneros, a Mexican citizen, faced removal for entering the U.S. without inspection under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
- He applied for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1) after a 2006 Texas public lewdness misdemeanor conviction (Tex. Penal Code § 21.07).
- An IJ held he was ineligible for relief because § 21.07 is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and pretermitted review of the conviction record.
- The BIA affirmed, relying on a previous decision treating public lewdness as a CIMT; Cisneros appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
- The court applied the CIMT two-step framework, determining § 21.07 is divisible and may involve non-turpitudinous conduct; it granted review and remanded for modified categorical review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether public lewdness is categorically a CIMT. | Cisneros argues § 21.07 is divisible with non-turpitudinous subsections. | The government contends § 21.07 is categorically CIMT based on its text and case law. | Not categorically CIMT; remand for modified categorical review. |
| Whether the statute is divisible and the record supports a CIMT under a specific subsection. | Cisneros contends a subselection describes CIMT conduct. | BIA applied a categorical approach to § 21.07 without examining subsections. | Statute is divisible; remand to apply modified categorical approach. |
| Whether Matter of Medina and related precedents govern the CIMT analysis for Texas public lewdness. | Cisneros relies on Medina to argue non-categorically CIMT. | Defendant relies on Medina to support categorical CIMT. | Medina does not control; analysis must consider divisibility and state-law nuances. |
| What is the proper remedy given the CIMT determination? | Cisneros seeks cancellation of removal if not CIMT. | Ineligibility if CIMT. | Grant; vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Esparza-Rodriguez v. Holder, 699 F.3d 821 (5th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of CIMT determination; two-step framework remains valid)
- Garcia-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2007) (defines moral turpitude; general baseline concept)
- Nino v. Holder, 690 F.3d 691 (5th Cir. 2012) (illustrates application of CIMT analysis to state/federal crimes)
- Amouzadeh v. Winfrey, 467 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2006) (minimum reading test for CIMT categorization)
- Rodriguez-Castro v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2005) (premised on framework guiding CIMT interpretation)