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

pleadomestic violencefelony
pleadomestic violencefelonyasylum

Related Cases

Sargetis ; U.S. v.
View Case »
Xiao Xing Ni v. Gonzales
View Case »
Du v. Chertoff
View Case »
Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales
View Case »
Arias-Ordonez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez v. Garland

Facts

Christian Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, was brought to the U.S. by his mother at the age of two due to domestic violence from his father. After living without lawful immigration status for years, Lopez was arrested in 2019 for various offenses, including petty larceny. He pleaded guilty to felony weapons charges and multiple municipal charges of petit larceny, leading to his removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in 2021 based on his convictions.

Lopez was brought to the United States by his mother, Yadira, when Lopez was approximately two years old. Yadira left Mexico with her children due to domestic violence perpetrated by Lopez's father, Rodrigo. According to Yadira, Rodrigo routinely inflicted serious physical violence on her that sometimes resulted in bleeding and loss of consciousness. Upon arriving in the United States in 2000, Yadira and Lopez lived for approximately thirteen years without lawful immigration status and did not file for asylum. In July 2019, Lopez was arrested while driving a friend's borrowed car that had been reported as stolen. Lopez pleaded guilty in September 2021 to the felony weapons charge and four municipal charges of petit larceny under section 8.10.040 of the Reno Municipal Code ('RMC') in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges.

Issue

Did the BIA err in finding Lopez removable based on his convictions for petty larceny under RMC 8.10.040, and did the unavailability of a pardon preclude his removal?

Did the BIA err in finding Lopez removable based on his convictions for petty larceny under RMC 8.10.040, and did the unavailability of a pardon preclude his removal?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), a noncitizen is removable if convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), a noncitizen is removable if convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Lopez's convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude. It concluded that the BIA's interpretation of the law, which states that a theft offense qualifies as a CIMT if it includes an intent to deprive either permanently or under circumstances where the owner's property rights are substantially eroded, was valid. The court found that Lopez's convictions met this standard.

We conclude that the BIA's most recent interpretation of the INA holding that a theft offense constitutes a CIMT if it includes an intent to deprive 'either permanently or under circumstances where the owner's property rights are substantially eroded,' Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga, 26 I. & N. Dec. 847, 854 (BIA 2016)(emphasis added), is entitled to respect under Skidmore, 323 U.S. 134. Applying the BIA's interpretation, we conclude that a conviction under Reno's petit larceny ordinance, RMC 8.10.040, is categorically a CIMT.

Conclusion

The court denied Lopez's petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that he was removable based on his convictions for petty larceny.

The BIA correctly concluded that Lopez is removable based on his municipal convictions for petty larceny.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision regarding Lopez's removability based on his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision regarding Lopez's removability based on his convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude.

You must be