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

statuteappealfelonynaturalization
statutefelonynaturalization

Related Cases

Rebilas v. Keisler
View Case »
Flores-Leon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Iqbal v. Bryson
View Case »
Santos v. Reno
View Case »
Virk v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Flores-Lopez v. Holder

Facts

Flores-Lopez was born in El Salvador and was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1992. In 2006, he pled guilty to resisting an executive officer in violation of CPC 69 and was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment. The Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings against him in 2007, charging him with removability under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of a crime of violence aggravated felony. The IJ concluded that the government had failed to prove that Flores-Lopez had been convicted of a crime of violence, leading to the termination of the removal proceedings, which was later appealed by the Department of Homeland Security to the BIA.

Flores-Lopez was born in El Salvador and was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident in 1992. In 2006, he pled guilty to resisting an executive officer in violation of CPC 69 and was sentenced to one year and four months of imprisonment. The Immigration and Naturalization Service initiated removal proceedings against him in 2007, charging him with removability under INA 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of a crime of violence aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether Flores-Lopez's conviction for resisting an executive officer under Cal. Penal Code 69 constitutes a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Whether Flores-Lopez's conviction for resisting an executive officer under Cal. Penal Code 69 constitutes a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Rule

An offense is a 'crime of violence' if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or if it is a felony that involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense.

An offense is a 'crime of violence' if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or if it is a felony that involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the conduct proscribed by CPC 69 creates a substantial risk that physical force against another may be used. It concluded that the statute's requirement of de minimis force does not meet the threshold of 'physical force' necessary for a crime of violence under 16. The court emphasized that the definition of 'force or violence' in CPC 69 is broader than the 'physical force' required under federal law, thus failing to qualify as a crime of violence.

The court analyzed whether the conduct proscribed by CPC 69 creates a substantial risk that physical force against another may be used. It concluded that the statute's requirement of de minimis force does not meet the threshold of 'physical force' necessary for a crime of violence under 16.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for application of the modified categorical approach to determine if the California offense was a crime of violence.

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for application of the modified categorical approach to determine if the California offense was a crime of violence.

Who won?

Flores-Lopez prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under CPC 69 did not meet the criteria for a categorical crime of violence, thus reversing the BIA's decision.

Flores-Lopez prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under CPC 69 did not meet the criteria for a categorical crime of violence, thus reversing the BIA's decision.

You must be