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

felonymens rea
statutefelonymisdemeanorparolemens rea

Related Cases

Venzor-Granillo; U.S. v.
View Case »
Richardson v. U.S.
View Case »
Young China Daily v. Chappell
View Case »
Fogo de Chao Inc. v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Abou-Haidar v. Gonzales
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Leal v. Holder

Facts

Edgar Leal, a native of Mexico, entered the U.S. without inspection in 1990 and has four U.S. citizen children. In 2007, he pled guilty to felony endangerment and DUI under Arizona law. Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting he was removable due to his criminal conviction. Leal sought cancellation of removal, but the Immigration Judge and subsequently the BIA determined that his felony endangerment conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, rendering him ineligible for cancellation.

Leal is a native and citizen of Mexico, born in Culiacan, Mexico, on October 5, 1978, who entered the United States on January 1, 1990, without being admitted or paroled. Leal has four U.S. citizen children, and his spouse and parents are lawful permanent residents of the United States who reside in Arizona. On March 12, 2007, Leal pled guilty to, and was subsequently convicted of, felony endangerment under Arizona Revised Statute 13-1201 and misdemeanor driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor ('DUI') under Arizona Revised Statute 28-1381(A)(1).

Issue

Whether Leal's conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona law constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, thus making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Whether Leal's conviction for felony endangerment under Arizona law constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, thus making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

Rule

A crime involves moral turpitude if it requires a perpetrator to have committed a reprehensible act with some form of scienter. The elements of felony endangerment in Arizona include recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.

A crime involves moral turpitude if it requires a perpetrator to have committed a reprehensible act with some form of scienter. The elements of felony endangerment in Arizona include recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.

Analysis

The court analyzed the elements of felony endangerment and determined that the BIA's conclusion that the crime involved moral turpitude was reasonable. The court noted that the crime requires a substantial risk of imminent death, which reflects a serious level of harm. The court also addressed the mens rea requirement, affirming that recklessness, even if resulting from voluntary intoxication, suffices to establish the necessary culpability for moral turpitude.

The court analyzed the elements of felony endangerment and determined that the BIA's conclusion that the crime involved moral turpitude was reasonable. The court noted that the crime requires a substantial risk of imminent death, which reflects a serious level of harm. The court also addressed the mens rea requirement, affirming that recklessness, even if resulting from voluntary intoxication, suffices to establish the necessary culpability for moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Leal's conviction for felony endangerment was indeed a crime involving moral turpitude, and thus his petition for review was denied.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BIA's decision, concluding that Leal's conviction for felony endangerment was indeed a crime involving moral turpitude, and thus his petition for review was denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in this case as the court upheld the BIA's determination that Leal's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

The government prevailed in this case as the court upheld the BIA's determination that Leal's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude, making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.

You must be