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

statuteappeal
appeal

Related Cases

Miresles-Zuniga v. Holder
View Case »
Oppedisano v. Holder
View Case »
McBrearty v. Perryman
View Case »
Ventura; U.S. v.
View Case »
Mahadeo v. Reno
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Flores-Molina v. Sessions

Facts

Francisco Flores-Molina, an undocumented alien from Mexico, was subject to removal from the United States after being convicted of violating Denver Municipal Code 38-40, which prohibits giving false information to a city official during an investigation. Following a driving-related offense in 2011, the federal government issued a Notice to Appear, charging him with removability. The immigration judge found him removable based on his admissions and denied his application for cancellation of removal, concluding that his conviction was a CIMT.

Mr. Flores-Molina is a citizen of Mexico who came to the United States illegally and has remained here continuously since 1998. In March 2000, he pled guilty to violating Denver Municipal Code ('DMC') 38-40, which prohibits giving false information to a city official during an investigation.

Issue

Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals properly concluded that Flores-Molina's conviction under Denver Municipal Code 38-40 is a crime involving moral turpitude under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the BIA properly concluded DMC 38-40 is a 'crime involving moral turpitude' within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA').

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) is defined as an offense that involves reprehensible conduct committed with some degree of scienter. The determination of whether an offense is a CIMT is made using the categorical approach, comparing the statutory definition of the offense with the generic definition of CIMT.

Whether a cancellation-of-removal applicant's crime of conviction constitutes a CIMT is a question of law, and we review the BIA's legal conclusions de novo.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine that the offense under Denver Municipal Code 38-40 did not meet the criteria for a CIMT. It found that the statute does not require an express or inherent intent to defraud, deceive, or obstruct justice, which are necessary elements for a conviction to qualify as a CIMT. The court concluded that the BIA's interpretation was not reasonable given the lack of a specific intent element in the statute.

For the reasons set forth below, we conclude it is not.

Conclusion

The court granted Flores-Molina's petition and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that his conviction did not constitute a CIMT.

We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

Who won?

Francisco Flores-Molina prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA erred in its determination that his conviction was a CIMT, which barred him from seeking cancellation of removal.

Mr. Flores-Molina then filed a petition in this court, arguing the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in finding that his crime of conviction, Denver Municipal Code 38-40, is a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be