A0914104 As Ariz Rv Stat § 2-133A ncompasss both turpitudnous ad nonurudnous condut, the Nnth Crut has treated i as a divsbl" statu visvs he CMT oncpt autorizng mmaton Judgs to consul alns convcion rcords undr h moded agoral approach" o dtrmn hther te paricuar alen br he ou was onvced o dring" aher than mely exersig actual physial onrol"
See Marmlej-Camps v Hlder sura
a 913 & 12. e Imigation Judg onducd s a modid ategorica nquy here and ud tat the rspondens guy peas er o dving" whle intoxatd J at 2-4
Durng th pendeny of ths removal proeedings hoevr, e Suprm Cou decided
Descas v United tates
133 S Ct 226 203, ic mraced a oncepon of dvsibilty" at aps substantialy narowe han at mbodid n
Cou hd tha a crnal satue is disil, so as o warrat a modied agoral inquiy, ony f: 1 it ss mulp dsree onses s numrated ateatives or dens a sn oens by referen to disjuncve sts of lemnts," mor han on combination of hch could supo a convto; and 2 at least on but no all of hose lisd oenss or ombinations of disjunte lements is a agora math to rlean gnric standd
at 2281, 223 n ot words, t moded categoica approach does not apply mey eas he elemnts o a e a sometimes b prod by rn o
tha s he genrc federa stdad undr
sch crmes ar mrely overbroad," thy are no disibe"
a 2256 229092. Th Ninth Ciruit has drmined ha h cagorcal approach apples n rmova cases nvovng CMT onvictions,
ee OlvasMa v lder
7 3d 199 9h Cir 013, ad has also onluded that approac to dvisility anond n
aplis n h mgration ontex
See guiarTurcis Hlder
740 3d 1294, 30-02 9t Cr 201 Acordingly, o pse ask is to deid hethr Ariz R Stat § 28-1383A rmans dsibl" r CIM puposs ithi the meanng o
I ight of
Aiz Re Stat § 281383A an b onsderd divisbe" no disrt onss requng drng" d atua pysal control" only if Arzona law dens drng" and acual psal ontr" as atatv elments" o h oens Under
the m elment" mans a t aout a cr whih t] Sxt Amendmn contemplas that a juynot a snncig couwill nd .. , unaimously ad byond a reasonabl doubt"
at 2288 citng
Richardsn v United Saes
526 S 13, 817 1999 us, f Arzona law does not rqur both rof byond a reasonabe doubt ad uy unanmi as to e a dendan ged under iz R tat § 2133A was driing" or exersing acual hysa ontro" oe th vhic t ncssily llos hat drvng" and actua psial ontol" a not ateati emens" r disibity puoses, ut raher mer ateav mans" b which a dendant can comt aavae DI
See Schad v rzna
.S. 2, 3
(991) (plualiy opinion ("[L]egislaures fequety enumerae aleaive
means o comng a crme ihou nendn o dn sara mns or sparae crms" Aizona Supreme Cout as hd tha h Sates onsttional reirmnt of ur unant,
Arz Const., At II, § 23, does not entl a defendant to a unanimos verdct on he es m e in wh e [rnal at as omed"
ee ate v Encnas
67 P2d 62, 62 1982
caon omited). Appying ha
Cite as: Raul Sainz-Rivera, A091 684 104 (BIA Mar. 10, 2014)