'
Muro, Roxana V Esq Law Offces of Roxana V Muro 51
O W
6th Street Suite 420 os Angeles CA 9004
Executive Oce r Imgration Revew
Board ofligtio Appes Oce of the Cek
507 Lesburg Pik, Sut 2000 Fal Chuch, Vna 030
HS/ICE Offce of Chef Counsel· LOS 606 S. Olve Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles CA 90014 Name: E-L, C A A 485 Date of ths notce: 7/3/2014
nclosed is a copy of the Board's ecson an order in the above-rerenced case. nclosre
Mb: Ply, Rg
Sncerely,
0
G
C
W
Doa Carr Che Cerk
w k
Cite as: C-A-E-L-, AXX XXX 485 (BIA July 3, 2014)
For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Oce r Immigaton Reiew Decison of the Bod ofgation Appeals Falls Chuch, Vginia
20530
File: 485 -Los Angeles, CA Date In re C A EL a.ka
1
REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF ESPONDENT R oxana V. Muro, Esquire CHARGE:
JUL
-
3 2014
Notice Sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 USC § 1l82(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled APPLICATION: Cancellation of removal The respondent, a native and citizen of Guatemala, appeals om the Immigation Judge's decision dated May 29, 2013, denying his application r cancellation of removal
See
section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 US.C § 1229b(b). The record will be remanded The respondent concedes that he is removable om the United States by virtue of his unlawl presence, and thus the only issue on appeal is whether he is eligible to apply r cancellation of removal Section 240A(b
)(!
)(C) of the Act requires that an applicant r cancellation of removal demonstrate that he has not been convicted of an oense under sections 212(a)(2) or 237(a)(2) of the Act, 8 USC §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2) According to the Immigration Judge, the respondent did not carry his burden of proof under section 240A(b)(l)(C) because he sustained a 1998 conviction r violating Cal. Penal Code § 261.5( d), an oense that may constitute a cme involving moral turpitude ("CIMT) under section 237(a)(2) of the Act (I.J at 39 On appeal, the respondent challenges the Immigration udge's deteination that he was convicted of a CIMT To determine whether an oense qualies as
a
CIMT, we employ a categorical approach.
Olivas-Motta v. Holder
716 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2013). Under that approac, an oense is a categorical CIMT if the minimum conduct that has a realistic probability of being prosecuted under the statute of conviction corresponds to the generic meaning of the CIMT concept.
See, eg GonzaleCervante v Holder
709 F.3d 1265, 1266 (9th Cir. 2013);
Nunez v Holder
594 F3d 1124, 1129 (9th Ci 2010) At the time of the respondent's conviction in 1998, Cal. Penal Code§ 2615(d) stated Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawl sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a lony,
1
Whether the respondent was convicted of a CIMT is a question of law that we eview de novo. 8 CFR § 1003(d)(3)(ii).
Cite as: C-A-E-L-, AXX XXX 485 (BIA July 3, 2014)
85 an shall be punshe by mprsnment n a unty jal nt exeeng ne yea r by mprsnment n the state prsn r tw three r ur years
s unspute that the ense ene by Cal enal Ce § 2615( ) s nt a ategral CIMT beause t es nt requre a perpetratr t have engage n ntentnal sexual nut wth smene he r she knew r shul have kwn t be a hl as suh there s a realst prbablty that t ul be apple t nut that es nt nvlve mral turptue
Matte of Aao
25 I&N De 17 2 (BIA 211 )
;
see also QuteoSalaza
Kesle
56 3 688 69293 (9th Cr 27) (nlung that an ense s nt a ateral CIM beause t rmnalzes eran nut that the ut eeme
malum pohibitum
suh as nsensual nterurse between a llege sphmre an hgh shl junr) As Cal enal Ce § 2615( ) enmpasses bth turptunus an nnurptunus nut ths Bar an the Nnth Crut have treate t as a vsble statute vsvs the CIMT nept authrzng Immgratn Juges t nsult alens' nvtn rers uner the me ategral apprah t etermne whether the parular alen bere the u kew r shul have knwn that the vtm was a h Here the Immgratn Juge nute suh a me ategral nqury an un that the rer was nnlusve as t ths questn suh that the respnent le t arry hs buren f prvng statutry elgblty r anellatn f remval (IJ at 68)
See Youg
Holde
697 3 976 98889 (9th Cr 212) Hwever urng the peneny f ths appeal the Supreme Cu hel that the me ategral apprah perates narrwly an apples nly f (1) the statute f nvtn s vsble n the sense that t lsts multple srete enses as enumerate alteatves r enes a sngle ense by rerene t sjuntve sets f elements mre than ne mbnatn f whh ul supp a nvtn an (2) sme (but nt all) f thse lste enses r mbnatns f sjuntve elements are a ategral math t the relevant gener stanar
Descamps
Uited States
133 S Ct 2276 2281 2283 (213) hus aer
Descamps
the me ategral apprah es nt apply merely beause the elements f a rme an smetes be prve by rerene t nut that ts the gener eal stanar; arng t the
Descamps
Cu suh rmes are verbra but nt vsble
Id
at 228586 22992;
see also Aguila-Tucios
Holde
7 3 129 1312 (9th Cr 21) (applyng the apprah t vsblty anune n
Descamps
n the mmgratn ntext) Beause the respnent has shwn that hs nvtn s nt r a ategral CIM the remanng ssue s whether Cal enal Ce § 2615() a vsble statute suh that the Immgratn Juge wul be permte t nut a me ategal nqury Cal enal Ce § 2615() ntans the llwng elements (1) sexual nterurse wth anther persn; (2) the enant was at least 21 years f age at the tme f nterurse; an (3) the ther persn was uner the age f 16 years at the tme f nterurse
PalayoGacia
Holde
589 3 11 11 (9th Cr 29)
es nt nlue a
sciete
requrement
Id
Lke the rmnal statute at ssue n
Descamps
Cal enal Ce § 2615() enes Unlawl Sexual By elements we unerstan the
Descamps
Cur t mean thse ts abut a rme whh must be prve t a juy beyn a reasnable ubt
ad
abut whh the juy must agree by whatever margn s requre t nvt n the relevant jurstn at 2288 (tng
Richadso
Uited States
526 US 813 817 (1999)) 2
Cite as: C-A-E-L-, AXX XXX 485 (BIA July 3, 2014)
Reward Your Curiosity
Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.