Case Information
*1 FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT G RACIELA H ERNANDEZ DE No. 11-72401 M ARTINEZ , AKA Graciela
Hernandez Martinez, Agency No.
Petitioner , A201-157-132 v.
E RIC H. H OLDER , J R ., Attorney General,
Respondent . On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 6, 2014 [*] Phoenix, Arizona Filed October 24, 2014 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, Barry G. Silverman, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam Opinion [*] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
SUMMARY [**]
Immigration
The panel denied Graciela Hernandez de Martinez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision finding her statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because her criminal impersonation conviction constitutes a categorical crime involving moral turpitude.
The panel held that petitioner’s conviction for criminal impersonation by assuming a false identity with intent to defraud, in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13- 2006(A)(1), is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, because the statute explicitly requires proof of fraudulent intent.
COUNSEL
Hugo F. Larios, Tempe, Arizona, for Petitioner.
Karen L. Melnik, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
[**] This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PER CURIAM:
Graciela Hernandez de Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a final order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals held that petitioner is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because her conviction for criminal impersonation in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-2006(A)(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude. We agree because the statute explicitly requires proof of fraudulent intent.
Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1999 without being admitted or paroled. On March 18, 2011, petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of criminal impersonation in violation of A.R.S. § 13- *3 2006(A)(1). The statute reads as follows: “A person commits criminal impersonation by . . . [a]ssuming a false identity with the intent to defraud another.” Criminal impersonation is a Class 6 felony. Petitioner was sentenced to one year of probation.
The subsequent notice to appear in immigration proceedings alleged that petitioner was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, and pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Petitioner admitted that she was removable for having entered without inspection, but denied having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Such a conviction is not only another ground for removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), but renders an alien ineligible for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Affirming the immigration judge, the Board held that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal, ruling that criminal impersonation is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude because A.R.S. § 13-2006(A)(1) explicitly requires proof of “intent to defraud.”
Although 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) generally deprives
courts of jurisdiction to review final orders of removal against
aliens convicted of various offenses, we retain jurisdiction to
consider the purely legal question of whether petitioner’s
conviction involves moral turpitude.
Marmolejo-Campos v.
Holder
,
Petitioner argues
that her conviction does not
categorically involve moral turpitude because she used a false
Social Security number only to obtain employment, not for
anything more nefarious. However, we have held that crimes
requiring proof of an “intent to defraud” necessarily involve
moral turpitude.
Planes v. Holder
,
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.