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

statuteappealcase law

statuteprecedentpleaprobationparoleguilty plea

Related Cases

Vasquez-Valle v. Sessions

Facts

Orlando Vasquez-Valle, a native and citizen of Mexico, was convicted of witness tampering under Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285. Following his conviction, he was placed in immigration proceedings where he conceded removability but argued for eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA concluded that his conviction constituted a CIMT, which made him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Vasquez-Valle contested this determination, leading to the appeal.

Vasquez-Valle has lived in the United States for twenty years. He is married to a U.S. citizen, and they have two U.S. citizen children. Vasquez-Valle pled guilty to tampering with a witness in violation of Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 and was sentenced to two years of supervised probation. Three days after entering his guilty plea, Vasquez-Valle was transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, which issued a Notice to Appear alleging that he was removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) because he was present in the United States without admission or parole and because he was convicted of a CIMT in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Issue

Did the BIA err in concluding that Vasquez-Valle's conviction for witness tampering was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude?

Rule

A conviction is categorized as a CIMT if it involves conduct that is fraudulent, base, vile, or depraved, and violates accepted moral standards. The court applies a categorical approach to determine if the statute of conviction aligns with the generic definition of a CIMT.

There are two categories of CIMTs: 'those involving fraud and those involving grave acts of baseness or depravity.' Rivera v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1064, 1074 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Latter-Singh v. Holder, 668 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2012) ('Although the immigration statutes do not specifically define offenses constituting crimes involving moral turpitude, a crime involving moral turpitude is generally a crime that '(1) is vile, base, or depraved and (2) violates accepted moral standards.' (quoting Saavedra-Figueroa v. Holder, 625 F.3d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 2010))).

Analysis

The court analyzed the Oregon statute and determined that it was overbroad because it criminalized conduct that did not necessarily involve fraudulent or depraved actions. The specific subsection under which Vasquez-Valle was convicted did not meet the criteria for a CIMT, as it allowed for convictions based on conduct that could be outside the moral turpitude definition. The court emphasized that the BIA's reasoning was inconsistent with prior Ninth Circuit case law.

The BIA concluded that an intent to interfere with a government function is sufficient to constitute a CIMT. The BIA further concluded that Oregon witness tampering was 'contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals.' But under our precedent, neither of those definitions is the correct standard for determining whether an offense is a CIMT. Contrary to the BIA's determination, we conclude that Oregon Revised Statutes 162.285 is overbroad because the minimum conduct it criminalizes is not necessarily fraudulent, base, vile, or depraved.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit granted Vasquez-Valle's petition, concluding that his conviction for witness tampering was not categorically a CIMT, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

We therefore grant Vasquez-Valle's petition and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Orlando Vasquez-Valle prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA's determination regarding his conviction as a CIMT was incorrect and inconsistent with legal standards.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Patel v. Ashcroft

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

Larios-Reyes v. Lynch

Omni Cap. International Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co.

Accardo v. United States