Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealwill
attorneyappealwill

Related Cases

Rodriguez-Valencia v. Holder
View Case »
Baoyu Zhang v. United States AG
View Case »
Leguizamo-Medina v. Gonzales
View Case »
Posadas de Puerto Rico Ass, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
View Case »
Sanchez-Vasquez v. Garland
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bobadilla v. Holder

Facts

Orlando Manuel Godoy Bobadilla, a native and citizen of Canada, entered the United States in 1997 at age 17 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1998. He was convicted in state court of giving a false name to a peace officer in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.506, Subd. 1, and of theft in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.52, Subd. 2. The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings; Bobadilla denied removability. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that both convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude and ordered Bobadilla removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.

Orlando Manuel Godoy Bobadilla, a native and citizen of Canada, entered the United States in 1997 at age 17 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1998. He was convicted in state court of giving a false name to a peace officer in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.506, Subd. 1, and of theft in violation of Minn. Stat. 609.52, Subd. 2. The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings; Bobadilla denied removability. The immigration judge (IJ) concluded that both convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude and ordered Bobadilla removed. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.

Issue

Whether petitioner's conviction for providing a false name to a peace officer was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

Whether petitioner's conviction for providing a false name to a peace officer was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude is defined as a crime that involves both reprehensible conduct and some form of scienter, whether specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness, or recklessness.

A crime involving moral turpitude is defined as a crime that involves both reprehensible conduct and some form of scienter, whether specific intent, deliberateness, willfulness, or recklessness.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the BIA's conclusion that Bobadilla's conviction was a CIMT. It found that the BIA did not adequately consider whether the conduct underlying the conviction was inherently base, vile, or depraved. The court noted that the IJ and BIA failed to apply the 'realistic probability' standard required by the Attorney General's methodology in Silva-Trevino, which necessitates looking beyond the categorical approach to the specific conduct involved in the conviction.

The court applied the rule by examining the BIA's conclusion that Bobadilla's conviction was a CIMT. It found that the BIA did not adequately consider whether the conduct underlying the conviction was inherently base, vile, or depraved. The court noted that the IJ and BIA failed to apply the 'realistic probability' standard required by the Attorney General's methodology in Silva-Trevino, which necessitates looking beyond the categorical approach to the specific conduct involved in the conviction.

Conclusion

The court granted Bobadilla's petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

The court granted Bobadilla's petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

Who won?

Bobadilla prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's application of the law was incorrect and did not adequately consider the nature of the conviction.

Bobadilla prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's application of the law was incorrect and did not adequately consider the nature of the conviction.

You must be