Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Eduardo Gomez Jurado, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

Eduardo Gomez Jurado, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,023|Likes:
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed a DHS appeal and upheld the termination of proceedings upon finding that assault on a female under N.C. Stat. 14-33(c)(2) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor a crime of domestic violence under the categorical approach, and that the statue was not divisible under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). The Board also stated the cyberstalking under N.C. Stat. 14-196.3 is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index
In this unpublished decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed a DHS appeal and upheld the termination of proceedings upon finding that assault on a female under N.C. Stat. 14-33(c)(2) is neither a crime involving moral turpitude nor a crime of domestic violence under the categorical approach, and that the statue was not divisible under Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013). The Board also stated the cyberstalking under N.C. Stat. 14-196.3 is not a crime involving moral turpitude. The decision was written by Member Roger Pauley.

Looking for IRAC’s Index of Unpublished BIA Decisions? Visit www.irac.net/unpublished/index

More info:

Published by: Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC on Apr 07, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/06/2015

pdf

text

original

 
 
·- '
Jama Ibrahim 6065 Roswe Rd. N.E., Suite 950 Atana GA 30328 ame:GOMEZURADOEDUARDO
 rm  
COPY
Executive Oce r Imigraton
v
 
Board of Immigaton ppeals Oce of he Clerk
  I 07 Leebug Pk, Sute 000 Fl Cu Vgn 00
DHSICE Ofice of Cief Counsel -A
TL
180 Sping Stee Suie 332 Atanta GA 30303 A 09076402 Date of this notice 3/282014
Ecosed s a copy of he Board's decison and ode i e above-rerenced case. Eclosue
 Mb: Ply, Rg
Sinceey,
D
c
�t
Donna Ca Cef Cek
sch 'ia rzA
 k
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
Cite as: Eduardo Gomez Jurado, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)
 
)
U.S Depaent of Justice
Executive Oce r Imaton Revew Decso of h Board o Imao Apeal Fas Church, Virgna
20530
 File: A090 76 102 Atlanta, GA  Date:
MAR 2
8 2014
In re: EDUARDO GOMEZUDO a.ka Eduardo Gomez urado IN REMOVAL PROCEEDIGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF SPONDENT ama A. Ibrhim, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: CHARGE: Gene Hmilton Assistant Chief Counsel  Note Sec 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), &N Act [8 USC 
§
227(a)(2)(A)(ii)] -Convicted of to o more crmes involving moral rpitude Sec 237(a)(2)(E)(i), I&N Act 8 USC
§
227(a)(2)(E)(i)] -Convicted of crime of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse, cild neglect, or child abndoment APPLICATION: Terination The Depatment of Homed Security (DHS") appeas om an mmigation Judges  Mrch , 2013, decision teminating proceedings The respondent has led a brief in opposition  to the appeal For the reasons that llow, the apeal ll be dismissed At issue on appeal is wheher the DHS met its burden of proving that the respondent's August 2010 onvicon r assault on a male in violation of Norh Colina law is a crime involving mra trpiude,
wcd
wi
a
9
conviction r
eony
e
undr ' aw
 to satis the charge of removal arising unde section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) o te Immigration and Nationaity AQ. In addition, he DS arges on appeal that the assalt on a male conviction under section
14-33()2) of
te
No
Caolina statute is also a crime of domestic violence, satising te removal chage under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the
Act.
We
1
I
its Notice of Appeal, the DHS also rised the question whether the Immigration udge ered in nding that it had failed to prove that the respondents Mach 2012 conviction r cybestalking in violation of section 1963 constituted a crime nvolving moral turpitde However, in its appeal brief, the DHS does not elaboate on ts argment nor support it ih  pertinent egal authority We therere deem this argument abandoned eveheless, to th extent that the DHS challenges the Immigation udges ndings wth egard to whether  te cyberstaking conviction cn go towards satsing te crge of remova under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of he Act, we arm the Imigation dges nding in this regad (Tr at 8586)
See Cano


'y
Gen.,
709 F3d 1052, 1053 n 3 ( th Cir 2013) (analysis st (Continued     )
Cite as: Eduardo Gomez Jurado, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)
 
A090 76 102 review these legal questions de novo.
See
8 C.F.R.
§
1003.(d)(3)(ii). We also note that here are no contested questions o ct arising in his appea that wold igger clear error review.
See
8 C.FR.
§
1003.(d)(3)( i). he qestion wheer e assault conviction under the above-rerenced section o Noh Carolina law constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude is inoed by the Supreme Cos decision in
Descamps

United States
33 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) which was issued aer the· Immiation udge rendered his decision in this case. In
Descamps
 the Supreme Court explained at the modied categorical apprach operates narrowly and applies only i (1) the statute o convction is divisible in the sense hat it lists
multi
 
discrete oenses as enumerated alteatives or denes a single oense by rerence to disjunctve sets o elements" more than one combination o which could suppor a conviction nd (2) some (but not all) o those listed oenses or combinations o disjunctive elements are a categorical match to he relevant generic standd.
Id.
at 2281 2283. Thus aer
Descaps
e modied categorica approach does not apply merely because the elements o a crime can sometimes b proved y rerence to conduct at ts a generic deral standard; according to the
Descamps
Cou such crimes are orbroad" but not divisible."
Id.
at 22858 229092
he state statute under which the espondent was convicted r misdemenor assault provides in relevant pr tha. any person who comits any assault assault nd batery or aa is guilty o a Class  misdemeanor i in the course o the assault assault and baery or aay he or she . (2) [a]ssaults a male he being a male person at least 18 years o age"
See
 NC Gen. Stat. 133(c)(2). he Immigration Judge und that this staute did not categorically dene a crime nvolving moral trpitude but pursunt to the prties agreement conducted a modied categorcal analysis o the conviction record to determine i the conviction would suppor  the charge under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) o the Act (IJ. at 2-3). We disagree that under
Descamps

United States supra
 the statute lends itsel to a modied categorical inquiry into whether the respondent's conviction thereunder is r a cime involving moral turpitude While the anguage rerencing the commission oany assault determine i least culpable conduct necessary to sustain a conviction under the statute meets the stadard o a crime ivolving moral tpitude). The ybestg convicion was nt alleged as a ctual predicate r the charge under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) o the Act nd the HS does not allege on appeal that this conviction would suppo removal under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) o the Act.
See
HSs Brie at 3 n 2 nd Ex 5
2
By elments" we nderstand the
Descamps
Cou to men those cts about a crime which must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt
and
about which he jury must agree by whatever margin is required to convict n  the relevnt juisdiction.
Id
at 2288 (citing
Richadson

United States
526 U.S 813 817 (999)). The Eleventh Circuit has held that he requirements o the categorical nd modied categorical approaches may not be relaxed in CIMT cases
Fajado

S Att' Gen.
659 F3d 0 305 (1h Cir.1).
Cite as: Eduardo Gomez Jurado, A090 764 102 (BIA Mar. 28, 2014)

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->