Yerson Mauricio-Vasquez v. Matthew Whitaker, 910 F.3d 134

Petitioner Yerson Jack Mauricio-Vasquez, a Peruvian native and U.S. lawful permanent resident, was charged with removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(i) based on committing a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of admission.
He committed Virginia felony abduction on September 13, 2012 and was convicted July 12, 2013. Whether the crime falls within the five-year window depends on his date of admission.
DHS relied primarily on Mauricio-Vasquez’s 2006 Form I-485 (adjustment application) stating a last entry without inspection in October 2000, which would make his admission date the 2008 adjustment date.
Mauricio-Vasquez produced testimony, family declarations, school records (enrollment in Virginia February 2002), and Peruvian medical records (hospitalized in 2001), supporting that he arrived with inspection at Reagan National Airport in February 2002.
The IJ initially found DHS had not met its burden, the BIA remanded for factfinding, and on remand the IJ—crediting DHS’s I-485—found DHS had proved admission in 2008; the BIA affirmed, prompting this petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DHS proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mauricio-Vasquez was admitted in 2008 (i.e., last entered without inspection in 2000)	Mauricio-Vasquez: records and testimony show he was in Peru through 2001 and entered with inspection in Feb. 2002, so admission predates 2008 and the 2012 offense is outside the 5-year window	DHS: Form I-485 lists last arrival without inspection in Oct. 2000; therefore admission is the 2008 adjustment date and the 2012 offense falls within 5 years	Court: DHS failed to meet its clear-and-convincing burden; unrebutted evidence compels conclusion petitioner was in Peru through 2001 and admitted in 2002, so not removable on this ground

Ai Hua Chen v. Holder, 742 F.3d 171 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for factual findings in immigration cases)
Shaw v. Sessions, 898 F.3d 448 (4th Cir.) (clarifying clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard)
United States v. Watson, 793 F.3d 416 (4th Cir.) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof language)
Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111 (4th Cir.) (government bears burden to prove removability by clear and convincing evidence)
Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (U.S.) (18 U.S.C. § 16(b) vagueness holding cited regarding aggravated felony)
Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.) (declining to remand when further proceedings would serve no purpose)
Karimi v. Holder, 715 F.3d 561 (4th Cir.) (discussing limits on repetitive remands)