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

defendantstatuteappealfelonyimmigration lawmens rea
defendantstatuteappealcriminal lawfelonymens reacommon law

Related Cases

Lopez-Elias v. Reno
View Case »
Nijhawan v. Holder
View Case »
Fay v. Noia
View Case »
Milosevic v. Ridge
View Case »
Aishat v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Togonon v. Garland

Facts

Longinos Togonon, a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines, was convicted of arson under California Penal Code 451(b) in 2015 and sentenced to three years in prison. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, claiming his conviction constituted an 'aggravated felony' under U.S. immigration law. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Togonon's conviction matched the federal definition of an aggravated felony, leading to his appeal.

Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of arson in violation of California Penal Code 451(b) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an 'aggravated felony.'

Issue

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in determining that Togonon's conviction under California Penal Code 451(b) categorically matched the federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 844(i)?

Did the Board of Immigration Appeals err in determining that Togonon's conviction under California Penal Code 451(b) categorically matched the federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 844(i)?

Rule

To determine if a state offense is 'described in' 18 U.S.C. 844(i), the court employs a categorical approach, comparing the elements of the state offense with those of the federal offense. If the state offense criminalizes a broader range of conduct than the federal counterpart, it does not qualify as an aggravated felony.

To determine whether a state offense is 'described in' 18 U.S.C. 844(i) , we employ the categorical approach. Under that approach, we compare the elements of the state offense with the elements of the offense proscribed by 844(i) . If the state offense 'criminalizes a broader range of conduct' than its federal counterpart, United States v. Edling , 895 F.3d 1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 2018) , the state offense is not a categorical match and does not qualify as an aggravated felony.

Analysis

The court analyzed the mens rea requirement of both statutes, concluding that California Penal Code 451(b) allows for conviction without the need for subjective awareness of the risk of harm, while 18 U.S.C. 844(i) requires such awareness. The court referenced the California Supreme Court's decision in In re V.V., which established that a defendant could be convicted under 451 without being aware that their actions would likely cause harm. This difference in interpretation led the court to determine that Togonon's conviction did not match the federal offense.

This case turns on the first element, which requires that the defendant act 'maliciously.' Because the statute does not define 'maliciously,' we presume that Congress intended to adopt the term's established common law meaning. See United States v. Jones , 681 F.2d 610, 611 (9th Cir. 1982) . At common law, a defendant committed arson (the closest common law analogue of 844(i) ) by maliciously burning the dwelling house of another. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law 21.3, at 314 (3d ed. 2018).

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Togonon's conviction under California Penal Code 451(b) does not categorically match the federal offense under 18 U.S.C. 844(i), thus granting his petition for review and reversing the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision.

Given the way California courts have interpreted the mens rea requirement of California Penal Code 451 , we conclude that Togonon's conviction under 451(b) does not categorically match the offense proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 844(i) .

Who won?

Longinos Togonon prevailed in the case because the court found that his state conviction did not meet the federal definition of an aggravated felony, which was crucial for his removal proceedings.

Longinos Togonon prevailed in the case because the court found that his state conviction did not meet the federal definition of an aggravated felony, which was crucial for his removal proceedings.

You must be