You are on page 1of 4
 
'
Muro, Roxana V Esq Law Offces of Roxana V Muro 51
O W
6th Street Suite 420 os Angeles CA 9004
   
Executive Oce r Imgration Revew
Board ofligtio Appes Oce of the Cek
507 Lesburg Pik, Sut 2000 Fal Chuch, Vna 030
HS/ICE Offce of Chef Counsel· LOS 606 S. Olve Street, 8th Floor Los Angeles CA 90014 Name: E-L, C A  A 485 Date of ths notce: 7/3/2014
nclosed is a copy of the Board's ecson an order in the above-rerenced case. nclosre
 Mb: Ply, Rg
Sncerely,
0
G
C
W
Doa Carr Che Cerk
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For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished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 Oce r Immigaton Reiew Decison of the Bod ofgation Appeals Falls Chuch, Vginia
20530
File: 485 -Los Angeles, CA Date In reC 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 USC § 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 Immigation 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 US.C § 1229b(b). The record will be remanded The respondent concedes that he is removable om the United States by virtue of his unlawl 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 oense under sections 212(a)(2) or 237(a)(2) of the Act, 8 USC §§ 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 oense that may constitute a cme involving moral turpitude ("CIMT) under section 237(a)(2) of the Act (I.J at 39 On appeal, the respondent challenges the Immigration udge's deteination that he was convicted of a CIMT To determine whether an oense qualies as
a
CIMT, we employ a categorical approach.
Olivas-Motta v. Holder
716 F.3d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir. 2013). Under that approac, an oense 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, eg GonzaleCervante v Holder
709 F.3d 1265, 1266 (9th Cir. 2013);
Nunez v Holder
594 F3d 1124, 1129 (9th Ci 2010) At the time of the respondent's conviction in 1998, Cal. Penal Code§ 2615(d) stated Any  person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawl 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 CFR § 1003(d)(3)(ii).
Cite as: C-A-E-L-, AXX XXX 485 (BIA July 3, 2014)
 
 85 an shall be punshe by mprsnment n a unty jal nt exeeng ne yea r by mprsnment n the state prsn r tw three r ur years
s unspute that the ense ene by Cal enal Ce § 2615( ) s nt a ategral CIMT beause t es nt requre a perpetratr t have engage n ntentnal sexual nut wth smene he r she knew r shul have kwn t be a hl as suh there s a realst  prbablty that t ul be apple t nut that es nt nvlve mral turptue
Matte of Aao
25 I&N De 17 2 (BIA 211 )
;
 see also QuteoSalaza

Kesle
56 3 688 69293 (9th Cr 27) (nlung that an ense s nt a ateral CIM beause t rmnalzes eran nut that the ut eeme
 malum pohibitum
suh as nsensual nterurse between a llege sphmre an hgh shl junr) As Cal enal Ce § 2615( ) enmpasses bth turptunus an nnurptunus nut ths Bar an the Nnth Crut have treate t as a vsble statute vsvs the CIMT nept authrzng Immgratn Juges t nsult alens' nvtn rers uner the me ategral apprah t etermne whether the parular alen bere the u kew r shul have knwn that the vtm was a h Here the Immgratn Juge nute suh a me ategral nqury an un that the rer was nnlusve as t ths questn suh that the respnent le t arry hs buren f prvng statutry elgblty r anellatn f remval (IJ at 68)
See Youg

Holde
697 3 976 98889 (9th Cr 212) Hwever urng the peneny f ths appeal the Supreme Cu hel that the me ategral apprah perates narrwly an apples nly f (1) the statute f nvtn s vsble n the sense that t lsts multple srete enses as enumerate alteatves r enes a sngle ense by rerene t sjuntve sets f elementsmre than ne mbnatn f whh ul supp a nvtn an (2) sme (but nt all) f thse lste enses r mbnatns f sjuntve elements are a ategral math t the relevant gener stanar
Descamps

Uited States
133 S Ct 2276 2281 2283 (213) hus aer
Descamps
the me ategral apprah es nt apply merely beause the elements f a rme an smetes be prve by rerene t nut that ts the gener eal stanar; arng t the
Descamps
Cu suh rmes are verbra but nt vsble
Id
at 228586 22992;
 see also Aguila-Tucios

Holde
7 3 129 1312 (9th Cr 21) (applyng the apprah t vsblty anune n
Descamps
n the mmgratn ntext) Beause the respnent has shwn that hs nvtn s nt r a ategral CIM the remanng ssue s whether Cal enal Ce § 2615()  a vsble statute suh that the Immgratn Juge wul be permte t nut a me ategal nqury Cal enal Ce § 2615() ntans the llwng elements (1) sexual nterurse wth anther persn; (2) the enant was at least 21 years f age at the tme f nterurse; an (3) the ther persn was uner the age f 16 years at the tme f nterurse
PalayoGacia

Holde
589 3 11 11 (9th Cr 29)
es nt nlue a
 sciete
requrement
Id
Lke the rmnal statute at ssue n
Descamps
Cal enal Ce § 2615() enes Unlawl Sexual By elements we unerstan the
Descamps
Cur t mean thse ts abut a rme whh must be prve t a juy beyn a reasnable ubt
ad
abut whh the juy must agree by whatever margn s requre t nvtn the relevant jurstn  at 2288 (tng
Richadso

Uited States
526 US 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.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505