FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA JAUREGUI-CARDENAS, No. 16-71309 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A205-320-208 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 15, 2019 Pasadena, California Filed January 13, 2020 Before: Marsha S. Berzon and Paul J. Watford, Circuit Judges, and Robert H. Whaley, * District Judge. Opinion by Judge Whaley; Concurrence by Judge Berzon * The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 JAUREGUI-CARDENAS V. BARR SUMMARY ** Immigration The panel granted Maria Jauregui-Cardenas’ petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals concluding that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to her conviction for using false documents to conceal citizenship, in violation of California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 114, and reversed and remanded, holding that CPC § 114 is neither an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(43)(P) nor a crime involving moral turpitude. The panel observed that the necessary elements for conviction under CPC § 114 are: (1) the use; (2) of a false document; (3) to conceal citizenship or alien status; (4) with specific intent. The panel held that CPC § 114 is not an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(43)(P). The definition of an aggravated felony set out in § 1101(43)(P) incorporates an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), which, as relevant here, provides that “[w]hoever . . . uses . . . any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be . . . falsely made” shall be punished by law. The panel concluded that CPC § 114 is not a match to 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a), explaining that, in contrast to the elements of the state statute, which allow for the use ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. JAUREGUI-CARDENAS V. BARR 3 of any false document, the federal offense narrowly proscribes the use of specific, enumerated documents. The panel also concluded CPC § 114 is not divisible, noting that there are no subsections or separate elements expressed in the statute that could be independently proven. Thus, the panel concluded that the application of the modified categorical approach would be improper, explaining that the inquiry ends here with the state statute of conviction being broader than its federal counterpart and thus, not a match for an aggravated felony. The panel further held that CPC § 114 is not a CIMT. In so concluding, the panel observed that this court has defined a CIMT as an offense involving either fraud or base, vile, and depraved conduct that shocks the public conscience, and that a state conviction qualifies as ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals