Case: 19-60097 Document: 00515514195 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 4, 2020 No. 19-60097 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Antonio Garcia, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A091 384 335 Before Stewart, Clement, and Costa, Circuit Judges. Edith Brown Clement, Circuit Judge: Jose Garcia petitions for review of a final order of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that Garcia’s conviction for sexual assault of a child was a “crime of child abuse,” making him removable under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). We agree and thus deny Garcia’s petition. I. Garcia is a native and citizen of Mexico. He became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1990. In 1999, when he was thirty- Case: 19-60097 Document: 00515514195 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 No. 19-60097 five years old, Garcia raped and impregnated his fourteen-year-old stepdaughter. He kept this a secret at first but eventually confessed to his wife after the baby was born. Garcia was arrested for the rape seventeen years later and charged with sexual assault of a child in violation of Texas Penal Code section 22.011(a)(2). He was convicted in 2018 and sentenced to ten years’ probation. The Department of Homeland Security then initiated removal proceedings against Garcia, charging him as removable for having been convicted of a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The immigration judge determined that Garcia was removable because his conviction fell within the scope of a “crime of child abuse,” as that term has been interpreted by the Board, and denied Garcia’s application for cancellation of removal. Agreeing with the immigration judge, the Board held that Garcia’s conviction qualified as a crime of child abuse, rendering him removable under § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The Board also agreed that the circumstances didn’t warrant discretionary cancellation of removal. As a result, the Board dismissed Garcia’s appeal. This petition for review followed. II. We review de novo the Board’s legal conclusions, including whether a particular state conviction renders an alien removable. See Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). In doing so, however, we defer to the Board’s reasonable interpretations of ambiguous provisions in immigration statutes and regulations. Id. When the Board issues its own opinion without adopting the immigration judge’s reasoning, as it did here, we confine our review to the Board’s decision. Enriquez-Gutierrez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 400, 407 (5th Cir. 2010). With limited exceptions, we may uphold that decision only on the basis of the Board’s stated rationale. Id. 2 Case: 19-60097 Document: 00515514195 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/04/2020 No. 19-60097 III. Garcia challenges the Board’s decision on two grounds. First, he argues that the Board’s interpretation of a “crime of child abuse” is not entitled to deference. Second, he ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals