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

statutepleafelony
statutepleafelony

Related Cases

Kaufmann v. Holder
View Case »
Abimbola v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Moreno-Cebrero v. Gonzales
View Case »
Rubio v. Sessions
View Case »
Yu v. Brown
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Larin-Ulloa v. Gonzales

Facts

Larin was admitted to the United States in 1981 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to aggravated battery under Kansas law. The BIA found that Larin's conviction was a crime of violence, making him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). However, there were inconsistencies in the Kansas records regarding the nature of his conviction, leading to doubts about whether it constituted an aggravated felony.

Larin was admitted to the United States in 1981 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1989. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to aggravated battery under Kansas law. The BIA found that Larin's conviction was a crime of violence, making him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). However, there were inconsistencies in the Kansas records regarding the nature of his conviction, leading to doubts about whether it constituted an aggravated felony.

Issue

Whether Larin's aggravated battery conviction under Kansas law constituted an aggravated felony for removal purposes under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Whether Larin's aggravated battery conviction under Kansas law constituted an aggravated felony for removal purposes under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Rule

The court applied a modified categorical approach to determine whether the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony, considering the specific elements of the Kansas aggravated battery statute.

The court applied a modified categorical approach to determine whether the conviction qualified as an aggravated felony, considering the specific elements of the Kansas aggravated battery statute.

Analysis

The court noted that the Kansas aggravated battery statute was divisible, defining two distinct types of conduct. It concluded that while one type of battery was an aggravated felony, the other was not. The BIA had erroneously inferred from inconsistent records that Larin was convicted of the first type of battery, which was a crime of violence.

The court noted that the Kansas aggravated battery statute was divisible, defining two distinct types of conduct. It concluded that while one type of battery was an aggravated felony, the other was not. The BIA had erroneously inferred from inconsistent records that Larin was convicted of the first type of battery, which was a crime of violence.

Conclusion

The court granted Larin's petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

The court granted Larin's petition for review, vacated the order of removal, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

Who won?

Larin prevailed in the case because the court found that the evidence did not support the BIA's conclusion that his conviction was an aggravated felony.

Larin prevailed in the case because the court found that the evidence did not support the BIA's conclusion that his conviction was an aggravated felony.

You must be