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

negligencestatuteappeal
negligencestatuteplea

Related Cases

Stanton v. Stanton
View Case »
Sutton v. Vermont Regional Center
View Case »
Spirit Lake Tribe v. North Dakota
View Case »
Aguilar-Mejia v. Holder
View Case »
Martinez-Camargo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sotnikau v. Lynch

Facts

Ihar Sotnikau, a lawful permanent resident from Belarus, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Virginia after his friend drowned following a night of drinking. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, arguing that his conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. Both the immigration judge and the BIA ruled against him, leading to his appeal.

After pleading guilty to involuntary manslaughter under Virginia law, Ihar Sotnikau `a native of Belarus who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2008 `was subjected to removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security (the 'DHS') instituted those proceedings because, in its view, Virginia's involuntary manslaughter offense constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.

Issue

Whether Sotnikau is subject to removal because involuntary manslaughter under Virginia law is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

The dispositive issue in this proceeding is whether Sotnikau is subject to removal because involuntary manslaughter under Virginia law is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule

A crime involving moral turpitude must involve conduct that violates a statute and independently violates a moral norm, requiring a culpable mental state and reprehensible conduct.

A crime involving moral turpitude 'must involve conduct that not only violates a statute but also independently violates a moral norm.'

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Virginia's involuntary manslaughter offense involved moral turpitude. It found that a conviction could be based on criminal negligence, which does not require a conscious disregard of risks, thus distinguishing it from offenses that do involve moral turpitude.

The court applied the categorical approach to determine whether Virginia's involuntary manslaughter offense involved moral turpitude. It found that a conviction could be based on criminal negligence, which does not require a conscious disregard of risks, thus distinguishing it from offenses that do involve moral turpitude.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Virginia's involuntary manslaughter offense does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude and granted Sotnikau's petition for review.

Put succinctly, involuntary manslaughter under Virginia law does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude because a conviction thereof can be predicated on mere criminal negligence.

Who won?

Ihar Sotnikau prevailed in the case because the court found that his conviction for involuntary manslaughter did not meet the criteria for moral turpitude, thus invalidating the removal order.

The court concluded that Virginia's involuntary manslaughter offense does not categorically constitute a crime involving moral turpitude and granted Sotnikau's petition for review.

You must be