FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AGUSTIN ORTEGA-LOPEZ, No. 18-72441 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A088-994-318 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted September 4, 2020 Pasadena, California Filed October 20, 2020 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and David A. Ezra,* District Judge. Opinion by Judge Ikuta * The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. 2 ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR SUMMARY** Immigration Denying Ortega-Lopez’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel deferred to the BIA’s conclusions that: 1) the offense of knowingly sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in a fighting venture under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude; and 2) an alien who has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, has been convicted of an offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2) that makes the alien ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). In according Chevron deference to the BIA’s conclusion that 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) is a crime involving moral turpitude, the panel explained that the BIA considered Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010), which generalized that non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm, or an action that affects a protected class of victims. The BIA concluded that the absence of an intent to injure, an injury to persons, or a protected class is not determinative, explaining that this court and the BIA have concluded that the Nunez categories are not exhaustive. The panel also explained that the BIA provided a detailed explanation of its rationale and responded to this court’s concern that a crime involving harm to chickens appeared to ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. BARR 3 be outside the normal realm of crimes involving moral turpitude. The BIA explained that the immorality of the conduct stemmed from its infliction of suffering on sentient beings, so it applied to animals involved in cockfighting, as well as domesticated animals. The BIA distinguished this conduct from practices, such as hunting and food production, that are harmful to animals but necessary or acceptable. The panel also rejected Ortega-Lopez’s retroactivity challenge, concluding that the BIA did not change the applicable law. The panel next addressed Ortega-Lopez’s argument that his conviction did not make him ineligible for cancellation of removal. As relevant here, a cross-reference, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), provides that an alien is not eligible for cancellation under § 1229b(b) if the alien has “been convicted of an offense under section . . . 1227(a)(2).” Section 1227(a)(2), in turn, makes an alien deportable if the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals