FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HO SANG YIM, AKA Alez Suk Peter No. 17-70624 Yim Yoon, Petitioner, Agency No. A037-993-102 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. ORLANDO VELASQUEZ GARCIA, No. 17-70670 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A073-986-839 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. 2 YIM V. BARR RAUL BORGES BORBA-CARDOSO, No. 17-70742 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A030-861-138 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Yim v. Barr, 17-70624 Argued and Submitted June 5, 2020 Pasadena, California Velasquez Garcia v. Barr, 17-70670 Submitted June 5, 2020* Pasadena, California Borba-Cardoso v. Barr, 17-70742 Submitted June 5, 2020** Pasadena, California Filed August 25, 2020 * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). YIM V. BARR 3 Before: Consuelo M. Callahan and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Cathy Ann Bencivengo,*** District Judge. Opinion by Judge Ikuta SUMMARY**** Immigration On petitions for review brought by Ho Sang Yim, Orlando Velasquez Garcia, and Raul Borges Borba-Cardoso, the panel deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of “perjury,” as used in the aggravated felony definition of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), and held that perjury under section 118(a) of the California Penal Code is an aggravated felony. Each of the three petitioners was convicted of perjury under section 118(a) of the California Penal Code and then suffered adverse immigration consequences on the ground that he had committed an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), which includes “an offense relating to . . . perjury.” Applying the three-step categorical approach, the panel first explained that the BIA had interpreted the generic *** The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. **** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 YIM V. BARR definition of “perjury” to require that an offender (1) make a material false statement (2) knowingly or willfully (3) while under oath or affirmation or penalty of perjury (4) where an oath is authorized or required by law. The panel deferred to the BIA’s determination, explaining that the BIA had surveyed the definitions of perjury recognized at common law, codified in state and federal statutes, and adopted by the Model Penal Code, and that the BIA reasonably settled on a definition compatible with those sources. The panel also rejected the argument that it was not reasonable for the BIA to omit a requirement that a statement be made in an official proceeding, explaining that the federal perjury statute supports the BIA’s omission of a “proceeding” requirement, and that the BIA was not bound to adopt the definition used by a majority of the states. At the second ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals