Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2820, 633 F.3d 1211, 2011 WL 489693 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the term 'battery' for special-rule cancellation of removal is defined broadly by federal regulations to include repeated acts of physical violence that cause injury, irrespective of narrow state-law definitions or the subsequent improvement of the relationship between the abuser and victim.
Facts:
- Maria Lopez-Birrueta, at age 14, began a relationship with Gill Campos, a 36-year-old legal permanent resident of the United States.
- Lopez-Birrueta and Campos had two children together, a son E— and a son G—.
- While they lived together, when the children were very young, Campos was violent toward them and would often drive them in his car while drunk.
- Campos repeatedly struck his children, then ages 2 and 3, with a 24-inch long stick two to three times per week.
- The beatings were not for punishment, sometimes occurred in front of Campos's friends, and caused red welts on the children's legs that Lopez-Birrueta treated with ointment and ice.
- The abuse caused the children to fear their father and hide from him when he came home.
- Lopez-Birrueta permanently left Campos in 1999, taking her children with her.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government served Maria Lopez-Birrueta with a notice to appear for removal proceedings.
- In immigration court, Lopez-Birrueta conceded removability but applied for special-rule cancellation of removal under VAWA.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ), the trial-level adjudicator, denied her application, finding that the children had not been 'battered' or subjected to 'extreme cruelty'.
- Lopez-Birrueta, the petitioner, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), an appellate body within the executive branch.
- The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, adding its own summary analysis concluding no battery or extreme cruelty occurred.
- Lopez-Birrueta, the petitioner, filed a timely petition for review of the BIA's final decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lawful permanent resident father's conduct of repeatedly striking his young children with a stick, causing red welts, constitute 'battery' under the Violence Against Women Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A), for the purpose of the children's mother's application for special-rule cancellation of removal?
Opinions:
Majority - Graber, J.
Yes. The repeated, arbitrary beatings of the children with a stick causing physical injury constituted an 'act of physical abuse' and an 'act of violence' under the broad, remedial purpose of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and its implementing regulations. The court found the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) made several legal errors. First, it improperly imported a narrow, specialized definition of 'injury' from California's criminal sentencing law, when a uniform federal standard should apply in immigration matters. Second, the BIA wrongly suggested a 'heightened level of violence' is required, ignoring the regulation's inclusive 'includes, but is not limited to' language. Finally, the court held that the current, improved relationship between the father and children is irrelevant because the plain text of the statute protects victims who 'ha[ve] been' battered in the past.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the scope of 'battery' under VAWA's special cancellation provisions must be interpreted broadly and uniformly, consistent with the statute's ameliorative purpose. It firmly rejects the importation of narrow state criminal law definitions into federal immigration law, thereby promoting a consistent national standard. By focusing on the historical fact of the abuse rather than the current state of the relationship, the ruling strengthens protections for victims and prevents abusers from negating past conduct with subsequent good behavior. This precedent instructs immigration judges to apply a more generous and victim-centered standard when evaluating VAWA claims.
