Olivas-Motta v. Holder
Not provided (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining whether an alien has been "convicted of" a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for removal purposes, immigration adjudicators are confined to the formal record of conviction. Adjudicators may not consider extrinsic evidence, such as police reports, because "moral turpitude" is an element of the generic federal offense, not a factual circumstance surrounding a state conviction.
Facts:
- Manuel Olivas-Motta, a lawful permanent resident, was brought to the United States when he was ten days old.
- In 2003, Olivas-Motta was convicted under Arizona law for facilitation of unlawful possession of marijuana.
- In 2007, Olivas-Motta pled guilty to "endangerment" under an Arizona statute, specifically a class 6 felony for recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death.
- The charging document and the written plea agreement for the endangerment conviction did not contain any information about the specific underlying conduct that led to the charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. government initiated removal proceedings against Manuel Olivas-Motta in immigration court, alleging he had been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs).
- The Immigration Judge (IJ), relying on police reports submitted by the government pursuant to Matter of Silva-Trevino, found that Olivas-Motta's second conviction for endangerment was a CIMT.
- The IJ found Olivas-Motta removable and denied his application for cancellation of removal.
- Olivas-Motta, as the appellant, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA, as the appellee, also relied on the police reports and Silva-Trevino to conclude the second conviction was a CIMT and dismissed Olivas-Motta's appeal.
- Olivas-Motta, as the petitioner, filed a petition for review of the BIA's final order 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 the Immigration and Nationality Act permit an immigration judge to consider evidence outside the formal record of conviction, such as police reports, to determine whether an alien has been "convicted of" a crime involving moral turpitude?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Fletcher
No. The Immigration and Nationality Act does not permit an immigration judge to consider evidence outside the formal record of conviction to determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude. The court holds that the Attorney General's decision in Matter of Silva-Trevino, which allowed for such an inquiry, was wrongly decided. The statutory phrase "convicted of" is unambiguous and confines the analysis to the crime for which a formal judgment of guilt was entered, as shown by the record of conviction. The court reasoned that "crime involving moral turpitude" is a generic federal offense, and the phrase "involving moral turpitude" constitutes an element of that offense, not a circumstance. Citing Supreme Court precedent like Nijhawan v. Holder, the court concluded that because moral turpitude is an element, its presence must be determined using the categorical or modified categorical approach, which are limited to the conviction record.
Concurring - Kleinfeld
No, but on narrower grounds. The court should not perform a wholesale rejection of the Attorney General's decision in Silva-Trevino. The proper basis for the decision is that the Immigration Judge and BIA misapplied Silva-Trevino by relying on police reports. Deportability must be proven by "reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence," and police reports, which contain hearsay and are often unreliable, do not meet this evidentiary standard. Therefore, the use of police reports was inappropriate evidence to support a finding of removability, and the case should be remanded on that basis without deciding the broader question of whether Silva-Trevino is entitled to Chevron deference.
Analysis:
This decision creates a circuit split, aligning the Ninth Circuit with the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits in rejecting the Attorney General's framework from Matter of Silva-Trevino. The ruling solidifies that, within the Ninth Circuit, CIMT determinations are strictly limited to the categorical and modified categorical approaches, which only analyze the elements of the crime as defined by the statute and the record of conviction. This prevents immigration judges from conducting "mini-trials" into the factual circumstances of prior convictions using extrinsic evidence, thereby promoting consistency and protecting non-citizens from removal based on potentially unreliable evidence like police reports.
