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

statutecitizenshipcommon law

statutefelony

Related Cases

Rosales Rivera v. Lynch

Facts

Milton Bladimir Rosales Rivera, a citizen of El Salvador, pled no contest to a charge of perjury under California Penal Code 118 after providing false information when applying for a driver's license. During removal proceedings, the Immigration Judge and the BIA ruled that his conviction constituted a CIMT, which would bar him from obtaining cancellation of removal due to his son's U.S. citizenship. Rivera challenged this determination, arguing that the BIA's conclusion lacked a reasoned explanation.

On December 14, 2011, in the County of San Bernardino Superior Court, Rosales Rivera was charged with 'PERJURYAPPLICATION FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE' in violation of California Penal Code section 118. He pled no contest to the felony charge, and was sentenced to 180 days in the county jail.

Issue

Whether the BIA's determination that Rosales Rivera's conviction for perjury under California Penal Code 118 was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

The first issue in this proceeding is whether section 118 is categorically a CIMT.

Rule

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether a conviction is a CIMT, comparing the elements of the statute of conviction to the generic definition of moral turpitude.

We employ the categorical approach, as described below, to assess whether a statute of conviction is a CIMT.

Analysis

The court found that the BIA's decision did not warrant Chevron deference because it lacked a reasoned explanation. It determined that written perjury under 118 criminalized conduct that was distinct from common law perjury and did not require proof of intent to defraud. Therefore, the court concluded that Rosales Rivera's conviction for written perjury was not a CIMT.

We conclude that the BIA's decision does not warrant Chevron deference because Martinez-Recinos provided no reasoned explanation for its conclusion.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that Rosales Rivera's conviction was not a CIMT.

We therefore grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

Who won?

Milton Bladimir Rosales Rivera prevailed because the court found that his conviction for written perjury did not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude, thus allowing him to seek cancellation of removal.

The BIA's decision does not warrant Chevron deference because the BIA in Martinez-Recinos provided no reasoning whatsoever.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Morales-Santana v. Lynch

Shivers v. United States

Artee Corp., Matter of

Fermin-Rodriguez; U.S. v.

Econo Inn Corp. v. Rosenberg