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

statutetrustfelonysustainedadmissibility
statutetrustparoleadmissibility

Related Cases

Negrete-Ramirez v. Holder
View Case »
Aragon-Ayon v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Espinal-Andrades v. Holder
View Case »
Filippi; U.S. v.
View Case »
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Schumer
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Morales-Garcia v. Holder

Facts

Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in September 1986. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security served a Notice to Appear on Morales, alleging that he was subject to removal for being present in the U.S. without admission and for having been convicted of a CIMT. Morales was convicted in California for corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant/former cohabitant, a felony under Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a). The Immigration Judge sustained the charge of removability based on this conviction.

Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection near San Ysidro, California, in September, 1986. In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') served a Notice to Appear ('NTA') on Morales, alleging that he was subject to removal on two grounds: first, for being an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, see 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and second, for having been convicted of a CIMT, see id. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Issue

Whether Morales' conviction under Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for purposes of determining his inadmissibility and ineligibility for cancellation of removal.

Whether Morales' conviction under Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) qualifies as a CIMT for purposes of determining his inadmissibility, see 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and his ineligibility for cancellation of removal, see id. 1229b(b)(1)(C).

Rule

To determine whether a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude, the court applies the categorical and modified categorical approaches established by the Supreme Court.

To determine whether a conviction is for a crime involving moral turpitude, we apply the categorical and modified categorical approaches established by the Supreme Court in Taylor v. United States.

Analysis

The court analyzed the elements of Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) and determined that the statute's reach included relationships that did not necessarily involve a special relationship of trust, such as those between acquaintances or strangers. Therefore, the court concluded that not all conduct prohibited by the statute is morally turpitudinous, and thus, 273.5(a) is not categorically a CIMT.

The court analyzed the elements of Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) and determined that the statute's reach included relationships that did not necessarily involve a special relationship of trust, such as those between acquaintances or strangers. Therefore, the court concluded that not all conduct prohibited by the statute is morally turpitudinous, and thus, 273.5(a) is not categorically a CIMT.

Conclusion

The petition for review was granted, and the case was remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.

The petition for review was granted, and the case was remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.

Who won?

Morales prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, allowing for the possibility of cancellation of removal.

Morales prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction under Cal. Penal Code 273.5(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, allowing for the possibility of cancellation of removal.

You must be