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

defendantstatuteappealfelonyjudicial review
defendantmotionfelony

Related Cases

Pequeno-Martinez v. Trominski
View Case »
Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder
View Case »
Pequeno-Martinez v. Trominski
View Case »
Lewis v. Department of Justice
View Case »
One Ford Van; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Thompson v. Garland

Facts

Chike Abayomi Thompson, a native and citizen of Jamaica, was convicted in December 2015 of assault in the second degree under New York Penal Law 120.05(1). Following his conviction, removal proceedings were initiated in November 2016, and an Immigration Judge ordered his removal on the basis that his conviction was an aggravated felony crime of violence. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed this decision, leading Thompson to seek judicial review.

In December 2015, Thompson was convicted of the offense of assault in the second degree in violation of New York Penal Law ('NYPL') 120.05(1). Removal proceedings were initiated in November 2016, and on March 1, 2017, an IJ denied Thompson's motion to terminate the removal proceedings.

Issue

Whether a conviction under NYPL 120.05(1) is an aggravated felony crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(F) and 18 U.S.C. 16.

The sole issue before us is whether a conviction under NYPL 120.05(1) is a crime of violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(a).

Rule

A conviction is considered a crime of violence if it has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person or property, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16(a).

Section 16(a) defines 'crime of violence' as 'an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another.'

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine that Thompson's conviction for second-degree assault met the physical force requirement of 16(a). The statute required that a defendant cause serious physical injury to another with intent, which necessarily involves the use of physical force. The court rejected Thompson's argument that the statute was overbroad, affirming that the use of physical force can include indirect actions that cause harm.

Thompson's conviction for second-degree assault, therefore, meets 16(a)'s physical force requirement because NYPL 120.05(1) requires that a defendant (1) cause a serious physical injury to another (2) with the intent to do so.

Conclusion

The court concluded that Thompson's petition for review was denied, affirming the decision that his conviction constituted an aggravated felony crime of violence.

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the removal order based on Thompson's conviction being classified as an aggravated felony crime of violence.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the removal order based on Thompson's conviction being classified as an aggravated felony crime of violence.

You must be