USCA11 Case: 20-11654 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 1 of 40 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-11654 ____________________ RUPERTO HERNANDEZ ZARATE, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A215-569-562 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-11654 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 2 of 40 2 Opinion of the Court 20-11654 Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. JORDAN, Circuit Judge: Under federal law, a conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” (a CIMT) can have significant immigration conse- quences. For example, a person convicted of a CIMT is not eligible for the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2) & 1229b(b)(1)(c). The question presented in this ap- peal—one which has led to a circuit split—is whether a conviction for falsely representing a social security number, see 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B), is a CIMT. I In 2019, Ruperto Hernandez Zarate—a citizen and national of Mexico—was convicted of violating 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) for using a social security card that was not his. As relevant here, that provision makes it a felony for someone “(7) . . . for the purpose of obtaining anything of value from any person, or for any other pur- pose . . . (B) with intent to deceive, [to] falsely represent[ ] a number to be the [S]ocial [S]ecurity account number assigned by the Com- missioner of Social Security to him or to another person, when in fact such number is not the [S]ocial [S]ecurity account number as- signed by the Commissioner of Social Security to him or to such other person[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B). An immigration judge ruled that Mr. Zarate was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because his conviction under § 408(a)(7)(B) was for a CIMT, but otherwise would have granted USCA11 Case: 20-11654 Date Filed: 02/18/2022 Page: 3 of 40 20-11654 Opinion of the Court 3 him that relief. Mr. Zarate appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which agreed with the immigration judge and dismissed the appeal. See A.R. at 3–5. The BIA explained that § 408(a)(7)(B) requires intent to deceive, and as a result Mr. Zarate’s conviction was for a CIMT. Noting that the circuits were divided on the issue, it quoted our decision in Walker v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 783 F.3d 1226, 1229 (11th Cir. 2015), for the proposition that, “[g]enerally, a crime involving dishonesty or false statement is considered to be one in- volving moral turpitude.” The BIA did not, however, address whether a violation of § 407(a)(7)(B) is inherently base, vile, or de- praved. And that, as we will later explain, is a significant omission. II We “review de novo the legal question of whether a[ ] con- viction qualifies as a [CIMT].” Gelin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 837 F.3d 1236, 1240 (11th Cir. 2016). In determining whether a conviction is a CIMT, we employ the categorical approach (if the statute of conviction is …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals