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

statuteparole
statuteparole

Related Cases

Zarate-Alvarez v. Garland
View Case »
Diaz-Bernal v. Myers
View Case »
Victoria-Faustino v. Sessions
View Case »
Hernandez-Gonzalez v. Moyer
View Case »
Adame-Hernandez v. Barr
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Espino-Castillo v. Holder

Facts

Felipe Espino-Castillo, a native of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1992 without admission or parole and was convicted in 2012 of two counts of forgery under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2002. Following his conviction, he was charged with being removable as an alien convicted of a CIMT. Although he admitted to being removable under a different provision, he contested the CIMT classification, claiming eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Felipe Espino-Castillo, a native of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1992 without admission or parole and was convicted in 2012 of two counts of forgery under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-2002. Following his conviction, he was charged with being removable as an alien convicted of a CIMT. Although he admitted to being removable under a different provision, he contested the CIMT classification, claiming eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Issue

Whether an alien's forgery conviction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2002(A) should not be considered a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and therefore not disqualify him from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Whether an alien's forgery conviction under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2002(A) should not be considered a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), and therefore not disqualify him from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Rule

The court applies the categorical approach to determine whether a conviction is a CIMT, which prohibits examining the underlying circumstances of the conviction if the statute only proscribes morally turpitudinous conduct.

The court applies the categorical approach to determine whether a conviction is a CIMT, which prohibits examining the underlying circumstances of the conviction if the statute only proscribes morally turpitudinous conduct.

Analysis

The court determined that Espino-Castillo's conviction under Arizona law was categorically a CIMT because the statute involved intent to defraud, which is a recognized element of moral turpitude. The court also noted that the previous ruling in Beltran-Tirado did not apply to this case, as it was based on a specific federal statute and did not extend to state fraud statutes.

The court determined that Espino-Castillo's conviction under Arizona law was categorically a CIMT because the statute involved intent to defraud, which is a recognized element of moral turpitude. The court also noted that the previous ruling in Beltran-Tirado did not apply to this case, as it was based on a specific federal statute and did not extend to state fraud statutes.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming that Espino-Castillo's forgery conviction constituted a CIMT, thus barring him from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming that Espino-Castillo's forgery conviction constituted a CIMT, thus barring him from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the classification of Espino-Castillo's conviction as a CIMT, which disqualified him from cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the classification of Espino-Castillo's conviction as a CIMT, which disqualified him from eligibility for cancellation of removal.

You must be