26 I. & N. Dec. 550
BIA2015Background
- Silva-Trevino involved whether an alien was “convicted of . . . a crime involving moral turpitude” under INA § 212(a)(2). The Board initially found the Texas indecency-with-a-child statute not categorically a crime of moral turpitude.
- Attorney General Mukasey vacated the Board’s decision (Nov. 7, 2008) and adopted a three-step framework: (1) categorical inquiry, (2) modified categorical inquiry using the record of conviction, and (3) permitting consideration of evidence beyond the record when the record is inconclusive.
- On remand, an IJ applied the three-step test, considered extrinsic evidence at step three, and found Silva-Trevino’s conviction involved moral turpitude; the Board affirmed.
- The Fifth Circuit rejected the third step, holding “convicted of” bars inquiry beyond the record of conviction; that court and four other circuits refused to defer to Mukasey’s opinion, producing a circuit split.
- Because multiple circuits rejected the AG’s framework and intervening Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on allowing extrinsic factual inquiry, the Attorney General (April 10, 2015) vacated the Nov. 7, 2008 Silva-Trevino opinion in its entirety to allow the Board to develop a uniform standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "convicted of" allows inquiry beyond the record of conviction to determine moral turpitude | Silva-Trevino: adjudicators may consider extrinsic evidence when record is inconclusive (third-step justification) | Government/AG: the three-step framework is proper to determine moral turpitude in hard cases | The AG vacated Mukasey’s three-step opinion; courts have held extrinsic inquiry is barred and the Board must revisit the standard |
| Proper use of the categorical and modified categorical approaches | Silva-Trevino: modified categorical approach plus extrinsic inquiry when needed | AG’s framework endorsed categorical first, modified second, extrinsic third | Courts and subsequent SCOTUS precedent favor categorical/modified categorical limits; AG opinion vacated to resolve split |
| Whether uniform national standard exists and should bind the Board | Silva-Trevino sought a uniform framework via AG opinion | AG opinion attempted to bind Board nationwide but produced circuit split | AG vacated the opinion to allow the Board to craft a uniform rule consistent with circuit and Supreme Court precedent |
| Discretionary relief standard for sexual abuse of a minor | Silva-Trevino did not contest discretionary standards directly | AG invited Board to consider whether heightened evidentiary showing for favorable discretion is warranted | AG left this and related questions to the Board to address in future proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (explaining the categorical approach)
- Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. 563 (prohibiting reliance on uncharged conduct to determine "convicted of")
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (applying categorical approach; rejecting circumstance-specific analysis)
- Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (applying categorical approach to fraud/deceit offenses)
- Silva-Trevino v. Holder, 742 F.3d 197 (5th Cir.) (rejecting AG Mukasey’s third-step extrinsic-evidence rule)
- Olivas-Motta v. Holder, 746 F.3d 907 (9th Cir.) (rejecting extrinsic inquiry)
- Prudencio v. Holder, 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir.) (rejecting extrinsic inquiry)
- Fajardo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (rejecting extrinsic inquiry)
- Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir.) (rejecting extrinsic inquiry)
- Bobadilla v. Holder, 679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir.) (upholding AG’s approach)
- Mata-Guerrero v. Holder, 627 F.3d 256 (7th Cir.) (upholding AG’s approach)