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

negligenceappealfelonyimmigration law
negligenceappealfelonyimmigration law

Related Cases

Ventura-Escamilla v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Francis v. Reno
View Case »
Suassuna v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
United States v. Hadjiev
View Case »
Malvoisin v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lara-Cazares v. Gonzales

Facts

Marco Lara-Cazares is a permanent resident of the United States who was convicted in June 1998 by the State of California of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, receiving a total sentence of eight years in prison. The government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that Lara-Cazares's conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that his conviction qualified as a crime of violence due to the requirement of gross negligence.

Marco Lara-Cazares is a permanent resident of the United States who was convicted in June 1998 by the State of California of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, receiving a total sentence of eight years in prison. The government initiated removal proceedings, arguing that Lara-Cazares's conviction qualified as an aggravated felony because it was a crime of violence. The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals found that his conviction qualified as a crime of violence due to the requirement of gross negligence.

Issue

Whether Lara-Cazares's conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Whether Lara-Cazares's conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated qualifies as a 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Rule

The term 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. 16 means an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

The term 'crime of violence' under 18 U.S.C. 16 means an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the elements of Lara-Cazares's conviction and concluded that the crime did not involve the active employment of physical force against another person. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Leocal v. Ashcroft, which established that a crime involving negligence or accidental conduct does not meet the threshold for a crime of violence. The court determined that Lara-Cazares's actions did not constitute the use of physical force as required by 16.

The court applied the rule by examining the elements of Lara-Cazares's conviction and concluded that the crime did not involve the active employment of physical force against another person. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Leocal v. Ashcroft, which established that a crime involving negligence or accidental conduct does not meet the threshold for a crime of violence. The court determined that Lara-Cazares's actions did not constitute the use of physical force as required by 16.

Conclusion

The appellate court concluded that Lara-Cazares's conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence, and therefore, he was not removable under the immigration laws. The court granted his petition for review and reversed the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The appellate court concluded that Lara-Cazares's conviction did not qualify as a crime of violence, and therefore, he was not removable under the immigration laws. The court granted his petition for review and reversed the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Who won?

Lara-Cazares prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated did not meet the definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

Lara-Cazares prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction for gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated did not meet the definition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16.

You must be