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

statutepleawillimmigration law
statutepleawillimmigration law

Related Cases

West Indies Transp., Inc.; U.S. v.
View Case »
Bermudez v. Holder
View Case »
Itani v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Fakhuri v. Garland
View Case »
Idy v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Quintero-Salazar v. Keisler

Facts

Alberto Rene Quintero-Salazar, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1990 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1994. In 1998, he pleaded nolo contendere to charges related to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under Cal. Penal Code 261.5. Following his return from Mexico in 2002, he was detained by the INS, which initiated removal proceedings against him based on his conviction.

Alberto Rene Quintero-Salazar, a citizen of Mexico, entered the U.S. in 1990 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1994. In 1998, he pleaded nolo contendere to charges related to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under Cal. Penal Code 261.5. Following his return from Mexico in 2002, he was detained by the INS, which initiated removal proceedings against him based on his conviction.

Issue

Whether Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), thus making Quintero-Salazar removable.

Whether Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), thus making Quintero-Salazar removable.

Rule

For a conviction to be a 'crime of moral turpitude' under immigration law, it must be a crime that is vile, base, or depraved and violates societal moral standards, and it must be done willfully or with evil intent.

For a conviction to be a 'crime of moral turpitude' under immigration law, it must be a crime that is vile, base, or depraved and violates societal moral standards, and it must be done willfully or with evil intent.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine if the conduct criminalized by Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) constituted a crime of moral turpitude. It found that the statute criminalizes conduct that could be legal under certain circumstances, such as marriage between the adult and minor, and that it does not require a showing of intent, which is necessary for a finding of moral turpitude.

The court applied the categorical approach to determine if the conduct criminalized by Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) constituted a crime of moral turpitude. It found that the statute criminalizes conduct that could be legal under certain circumstances, such as marriage between the adult and minor, and that it does not require a showing of intent, which is necessary for a finding of moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) does not categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, Quintero-Salazar was not removable based on this conviction.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Cal. Penal Code 261.5(d) does not categorically qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude, and therefore, Quintero-Salazar was not removable based on this conviction.

Who won?

Alberto Rene Quintero-Salazar prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction did not meet the criteria for moral turpitude, thus reversing the BIA's decision.

Alberto Rene Quintero-Salazar prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction did not meet the criteria for moral turpitude, thus reversing the BIA's decision.

You must be