FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-10285 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 5:14-cr-00291-EJD-1 GONZALO VASQUEZ- GONZALEZ, AKA Gonzalo OPINION Vasquez-Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submission Deferred November 15, 2016* Re-submitted August 22, 2018 San Francisco, California Filed August 22, 2018 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Richard R. Clifton, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 UNITED STATES V. VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ SUMMARY** Criminal Law The panel affirmed a conviction for illegal reentry in a case in which the defendant brought two collateral attacks on his underlying removal. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that his removal was invalid because it was based on a conviction that was not a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16. The panel held that assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under Calif. Penal Code § 245(a)(1), as it was written prior to its amendment in 2011, categorically qualifies as a conviction for a “crime of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). Rejecting the defendant’s argument that § 245(a)(1) can be satisfied by negligent conduct, the panel concluded that the California statute requires an intentional use of force. Because the defendant has not shown that it was plausible that he would have been granted discretionary relief from removal pursuant to Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the panel rejected the defendant’s challenge to the validity of his removal based on the immigration judge’s failure to inform him of his eligibility for such discretionary relief at the time of his deportation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. VASQUEZ-GONZALEZ 3 COUNSEL Robert Carlin and Lara S. Vinnard, Assistant Federal Public Defenders; Steven G. Kalar, Federal Public Defender; Office of the Federal Public Defender, San Jose, California, for Defendant-Appellant. Meredith B. Osborn and Kirstin M. Ault, Assistant United States Attorneys; J. Douglas Wilson, Chief, Appellate Division; Alex G. Tse, Acting United States Attorney; United States Attorney’s Office, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. OPINION CLIFTON, Circuit Judge: This case presents the question whether a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury under California Penal Code § 245(a)(1), as it was written prior to its amendment in 2011, qualifies as a conviction for a “crime of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a). We hold that it does. Gonzalo Vasquez-Gonzalez, a citizen of Mexico, was convicted under § 245(a)(1) in 1995. He was removed from the United ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals