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

jurisdictionappealhearingplea
jurisdictionappealhearingplea

Related Cases

Duran v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Eltayeb v. Ingham
View Case »
Pisciotta v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Nasrallah v. Barr
View Case »
Aquino-Encarnacion v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fuentes-Cruz v. Gonzales

Facts

Fuentes-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has resided in the United States since January 1990 when he entered without inspection. In April 2004, he was arrested for unlawful transport of individuals under 20.05, and in August 2004, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency initiated removal proceedings against him, and at his removal hearing, he conceded that he was removable but requested cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The immigration judge found him eligible for consideration of cancellation but denied it as a matter of law because unlawful transport was deemed a crime involving moral turpitude.

Fuentes-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, has resided in the United States since January 1990 when he entered without inspection. In April 2004, he was arrested for unlawful transport of individuals under 20.05, and in August 2004, he pleaded guilty to the charge. The U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency initiated removal proceedings against him, and at his removal hearing, he conceded that he was removable but requested cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. The immigration judge found him eligible for consideration of cancellation but denied it as a matter of law because unlawful transport was deemed a crime involving moral turpitude.

Issue

Whether Fuentes-Cruz's conviction for unlawful transport under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 20.05 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

Whether Fuentes-Cruz's conviction for unlawful transport under Tex. Penal Code Ann. 20.05 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable. The BIA defines moral turpitude as conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the appreciated rules of morality.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, any alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude is deportable. The BIA defines moral turpitude as conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the appreciated rules of morality.

Analysis

The court applied a two-part standard of review to the BIA's conclusion that Fuentes-Cruz committed a crime involving moral turpitude. It found that the elements of unlawful transport under 20.05 required proof of intent to conceal individuals from law enforcement authorities, which indicates a fraudulent intent. By pleading guilty, Fuentes-Cruz admitted to knowingly designing the manner of transport to deceive law enforcement, thus satisfying the criteria for moral turpitude.

The court applied a two-part standard of review to the BIA's conclusion that Fuentes-Cruz committed a crime involving moral turpitude. It found that the elements of unlawful transport under 20.05 required proof of intent to conceal individuals from law enforcement authorities, which indicates a fraudulent intent. By pleading guilty, Fuentes-Cruz admitted to knowingly designing the manner of transport to deceive law enforcement, thus satisfying the criteria for moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Fuentes-Cruz's petition for review, affirming that his conviction was indeed a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's removal order.

The court dismissed Fuentes-Cruz's petition for review, affirming that his conviction was indeed a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's removal order.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision that Fuentes-Cruz's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision that Fuentes-Cruz's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude.

You must be