A045 296 896
is moon, he DHS gues that he Board's decision did no "expainhow heevidencepresened by heDHS inhe insta case is disinguishabeom the evidence considered in
DHS Moion a 3-. he moion aso rgues ht theBoad did no consider the appicabiliy of hehird case cited by he DHS:
.a 4 Finay heDHS moion alsochaenges he Boadsnding ha even if a convicion pursuo secions200.81 and 200.85 ofNevada saue had been shown the DHS ied o pove ha heespondents convicion conains he eemens of a cime of domesic vioencei.e. ha theconvicion was maked by he use of vioen ce indicaive of a crime of vioenceWihegad o ou naysis of the suciency of e conicion recod o eect a conviction of he respondent ude secions 20048 and 200485 of Neva statewe disaee ha we iled oprovide te DHS wih adequate basis r our denia of the appeal irs we noedtha or decisionto dismiss the appeawas based on he easons staed in theImmiation Judges oder.
Boads Jue 2 202 Oder a
As he miaion Judges order staed(a nding hat weexpand on beow) he minute oder a issue in . his cae maes no referenceto thesauociaion ming he basis of he espondensguity pea. IJ a 4 Inseadi indicaeshat heesponden was charged wi baey consiing domesic vioence a mee labe he oensehat is insucien sanding aone o eect tha he convicion is a removable oense
a 5e ephasized e Iiaon udges ndng above by nong in ou oder ha n
espondens case he mnue orde conains no efeence o . y specic sectionof the Nevadastae houghou is provisions erencing he responden inial no guiltypea d hen hisna plea ofguiy. Boards June 2 202 Ordera -2. e her indicaedhat e abenceof he satuo eence was
u ]lie he evdence descbed in
t a Ho spa
each of whch involved convicions evidenced by minue ode.Specicay caiy we note here hat in both
heminute odescontained refeence o he reevan secion of he sae saue under which he defeda wasconviced.
93 3d 0509 (9h Ci 2007) (reversed by peceding decision) (referencinghedefendans gity pea to59 peal codeAso he DHSs citaion o
we noe ha we nd his decisioninapposite n hat casete United Ses Cot of Appeas heNih Circui approved heexaminaion of he conents o a docet shee o deemnee naue of a conicion r posesof a senencing enhcemen. 60 3d a 9687. Howeve we noeha in ha casete specicsae se under which he conviction arose ws no in quesion The deendants convicion oseuder aice 27 chape 3 C of the aryand Code which hen proscribed chid abuse.
a 966.he quesionin
elaed o whethe he docke enies could be examinedto deemine he natre of the chid abuse convicion sincea ha ime boh sexua abue andphysica abuse were coveed by he same section of Maand aw.
exaingevidence reecing ha he defendan wa requied o register pusuant o sex oende saes heco consruedhe naue of he conviction under a modied caegoclapproach and ws noconceed whdeeining if cea nd onvincing evidenceof he specic coniction waspesened2
Cite as: Dhyana Aderne Goltz, A045 296 896 (BIA Nov. 5, 2012)