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

statuteappealprobationcase law
appeal

Related Cases

Talamantes; U.S. v.
View Case »
Abebe v. Mukasey
View Case »
Gill v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Singh v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Morillo-Cedron v. Dist. Dir.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Vasquez-Borjas v. Garland

Facts

Pedro Antonio Vasquez-Borjas, a native and citizen of Honduras, unlawfully entered the United States and was later convicted of forgery for possessing a counterfeit Social Security card in violation of California Penal Code 472. He was sentenced to 14 days in jail and two years of probation. Over a decade later, he was charged with removal under federal law and applied for cancellation of removal, claiming hardship to his U.S. citizen child. The Immigration Judge denied his application, leading to an appeal to the BIA.

Vasquez-Borjas, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States unlawfully. He has a child who is a United States citizen. After entering the United States, Vasquez-Borjas was convicted of multiple crimes, including forgery for knowingly possessing a counterfeit Social Security card in violation of Section 472.

Issue

Whether Vasquez-Borjas's conviction under California Penal Code 472 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude and whether he is eligible for cancellation of removal under the petty-offense exception.

Whether Vasquez-Borjas's conviction under California Penal Code 472 constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude and whether he is eligible for cancellation of removal under the petty-offense exception.

Rule

Under California law, intent to defraud is an element of a violation of California Penal Code 472, and a conviction under this statute categorically matches the federal definition of forgery, which is considered a crime involving moral turpitude.

California law established that intent to defraud was an element of aCal. Penal Code 472offense, including a charge based on possession, and intent to defraud was a necessary element of all convictions underSection 472.

Analysis

The court applied the categorical approach to determine that California Penal Code 472 requires proof of intent to defraud for all convictions, including those based on possession of a counterfeit item. The BIA's reliance on California case law established that a conviction under this statute is a crime involving moral turpitude, and Vasquez-Borjas's failure to exhaust his argument regarding the petty-offense exception further supported the BIA's decision.

Because we conclude that intent to defraud is a required element of a Section 472 conviction and because Vasquez-Borjas failed to exhaust his petty-offense-exception argument, we deny in part and dismiss in part his petition for relief.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit denied Vasquez-Borjas's petition for review in part and dismissed it in part, affirming the BIA's conclusion that his forgery conviction disqualified him from cancellation of removal.

The BIA concluded that Vasquez-Borjas was statutorily ineligible for cancellation because his forgery conviction was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed because the court upheld its determination that Vasquez-Borjas's conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude, which barred him from cancellation of removal.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied petitioner Pedro Antonio Vasquez-Borjas's application for cancellation of removal, concluding that his California forgery conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude that disqualifies him from relief.

You must be