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

precedentfelonyliens
felonyliens

Related Cases

Leyva v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Espinoza-Santill; U.S. v.
View Case »
Dipeppe v. Quarantillo
View Case »
Saucedo-Velasquez; U.S. v.
View Case »
Ram v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Salazar-Luviano v. Mukasey

Facts

Salazar-Luviano is a fifty-five-year-old citizen of Mexico, originally admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1976. He has lived in the Los Angeles metropolitan area for over thirty years with his wife, also a lawful permanent resident. In 1987, Salazar-Luviano pled guilty to Aiding and Abetting an Escape from Custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751, for attempting to free illegal aliens who had been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol. The aliens had been in custody near the border, in a Border Patrol vehicle; no legal proceedings had yet been commenced against them. Salazar-Luviano was sentenced to one year in prison for aiding and abetting the attempted escape but served only seventy-five days.

Salazar-Luviano is a fifty-five-year-old citizen of Mexico, originally admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1976. He has lived in the Los Angeles metropolitan area for over thirty years with his wife, also a lawful permanent resident. In 1987, Salazar-Luviano pled guilty to Aiding and Abetting an Escape from Custody, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 751, for attempting to free illegal aliens who had been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol. The aliens had been in custody near the border, in a Border Patrol vehicle; no legal proceedings had yet been commenced against them. Salazar-Luviano was sentenced to one year in prison for aiding and abetting the attempted escape but served only seventy-five days.

Issue

Is aiding and abetting an attempted escape from custody an 'obstruction of justice' crime, and therefore an aggravated felony, within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') 101(a)(43)(S)?

Is aiding and abetting an attempted escape from custody an 'obstruction of justice' crime, and therefore an aggravated felony, within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act ('INA') 101(a)(43)(S)?

Rule

To determine whether attempted escape from custody constitutes an aggravated felony under 1101(a)(43)(S), we first apply the 'categorical approach' set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990). The BIA has interpreted the elements of a generic obstruction of justice offense under 1101(a)(43)(S) in a precedential decision to which we defer.

To determine whether attempted escape from custody constitutes an aggravated felony under 1101(a)(43)(S), we first apply the 'categorical approach' set forth in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990).

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine that attempted escape from custody does not match any of the specifically enumerated obstruction offenses and that it would have to fall within 18 U.S.C. 1503's 'catchall' provision. The court found that the elements of escape from custody do not constitute obstruction of justice as defined in the INA because a violation of 18 U.S.C. 751 does not require the existence of a pending judicial proceeding, nor does it require knowledge of or specific intent to obstruct such a proceeding.

The court applied the categorical approach to determine that attempted escape from custody does not match any of the specifically enumerated obstruction offenses and that it would have to fall within 18 U.S.C. 1503's 'catchall' provision.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA to consider petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.

The court granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA to consider petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.

Who won?

Petitioner, Norberto Salazar-Luviano, prevailed because the court found that his conviction for aiding and abetting an attempted escape from custody did not constitute an aggravated felony under the INA.

Petitioner, Norberto Salazar-Luviano, prevailed because the court found that his conviction for aiding and abetting an attempted escape from custody did not constitute an aggravated felony under the INA.

You must be