juan gabriel rodriguez, a092 389 472 (bia jan. 17, 2014)

8/13/2019 Juan Gabriel Rodriguez, A092 389 472 (BIA Jan. 17, 2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/juan-gabriel-rodriguez-a092-389-472-bia-jan-17-2014 1/7

NOMURA, WALTER SWalter S. Nomura Attorney at aw4732 Kelsey PlaceStockton CA 95207

Dpan f uc

Executive Oce r Immigraton Revew

Board of Immigration AppealsOce o he Clerk

5/7 000 050

HS/ CE Oice of Chief Counse • SFRO Box 26449San Francsco, CA 94126-6449

Nae: RODRIGUEZ JUAN GABR A 092389472

Date of ths otice 1/ 17/ 201

clsed s cpy of the Bar's decii oer i te boe-erece cse.

sre

Mulane, Hugh G.Creppy Michael Japus Garry

Sceel,

D C

C lk

Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished

Cite as: Juan Gabriel Rodriguez, A092 389 472 (BIA Jan. 17, 2014)



RODRU JA ABRIA09289472CUSODY OFFCR60 SASOM S 6H FSA FRANCISCO, CA 94111

Dan f uc

xecute Oce r Igaton eew

Board ofmmgraon AppealsOce of he Clerk

/0 Leburg Pik, Sut 000Fls Chc Vgn 00

HS/ IC Oce o Che Counse - SFRP Box 2644San Francsco CA 941266449

Name RODRIGU JUA ABRI A 09289472

Date o ths notce 1/ 17/ 2014

ced a cy o te ard dec n te aoerereced cae. T coy beingprded you a a coutey Yur attoey or repreetatie a een ere wt teciin uruat t 8 CF § 12925(a) te atace decin order tat you ereoed o te Unte ae r a an igrato Judge decion orderg tat yoube reoed ay et r reiew o te attaced decion ut e ed w an receedy e apprriae cur aea win 30 day o te dae te decin.

cure

P Mb

Mae gh GCeppy Mchae JMaphrs Ga

ncerey

D c

na CarCie Cerk

Traesm: Dck




US Deparen of JuicExecutive Oce r Imga�n Revew

Deciso of the Boad o gat Appeals

Fas Chch, Vgna 20530

Fe: 9 89 - Sn Fracsco CA

re JU GBRIE RODRGUEZ

REOV PROCEIGS

CERTIFICIO

ate

O BEHF OF ESPOE Water S oma Esqe

CH

JAN 7 4

ote Sec (a)()(C) Ac 8 SC § (a)()(C) -Cocted o rerms or destte dece oato

PCO djstet o stas

OER

PR CURIA O Jy the Immrato Jdge ceed the record of proceedngsto the Boa prsat to 8 CFR §§ () ad (a)() a determnaton regardngthe respodets ebty r adstmet of stats he mmgrato Jdes atos aretmont to an teroctoy appea and we nd that cecato s not appropate thsnstance See Matter f Ri-Campan ec 8 (BIA 99) (hodng that order to

aod pecemea ree of the may qestons that arse the corse o proceedgs bere swe do ot ordnary enean neroctory appeas) eere we dee o acept themmgrato Jdes cecato of hs ase See 8 CFR § (c) (prodg that teBoard ts dscreto m ree ay case ceed by the Immgrato Jdge) (emphassadded)

ccordy he reord s retred to the mmgrao Cort wthot he Board acto

HE OARD




.

n Re

�

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEEXECTIVE OFICE FO IMMIGTION VEW

IMMGATION CUT

SAN FCISCO, CLINA

Juan Gabe Rodigez

espdent

)))

ae ly 3, 21

File Number: 092 389 472

n emova Prceedig

MEMNM

e resnen is nive and cize f Mexic er enering e Uied Saesiegl e ws me w ermnen resen in 990 n 999 e was conviced rdscrge a rer in a grss negigen mer in vioion o Cl en Cde Secion63 e ws ced n remov rceedings ad n Ma 00 e was graned canceain ofreov r ermanen residens uner Secin 0() o e migrain and Nnai c(IN) owever resonden go in rube gan

r 0 e was convice r beng on in ssession o a re in vioaion fC enl Ce Secin 0(a)( Ex. s is convicon r n ggravaed nUned Sae Ca-Riea F 3d 020 (9 Cir 00) e on redicae r is

cnvicion ws Februa 00 cnvcon r recei f soen re in viaion Calena Cde Secin 96(a) See Ex In 0 e ws aced in remv rceedigs a secnime nd carge wi ving been cnvced n ense reed o rems see Secin37()()(C)(. Resnen cncedes aienge d cncedes a e is revabe as cge

Resnen is neigibe r cncen of remva becse () e s been cnvice f ggrve ln n (2) e revious receive cnceion of reova IN Secins0()(3 and 0(c)(6) sead e sog ads sus nder Secn Iresnden s been cnviced of crime invovng mora uride (CIM) e cano dsss because e CM renders m indmssibe nd e canno bain a waiver under Secin () because e s revius been dmied s a awl ermnen resien an eas bee cnvice of n aggrvae on

Respondn cnnds tha e dos no need a Scion ( wver becuse ecep ofsoen rer is n a CM DHS conens in a une 03 ing a recei f slenre is CIM For e reasons se r bew e c nds a recei f solenre is crime nvlvng mora u nd a resnden is ineigbe adjus susuner Secin



Te eeents of receipt of stoen propety are tha person bouh, received, sold oconceale poperty which had ·been stoen o otned by extotion, ad the peson actuly ethe property as stolen or obtined by the or extoton the tie he bouht, eceived sod or

conceed te propey LJI 146nde armlejCamp . Hlder 8 .3d 93 (9t ir 29) en ban) the cot of

ppels is require to gve Cern erence to eteinatons by te BA in precedentdecisions as to wt cres constitute cries o oral tpitude Te en ban decision inarmle-Cam is, of cose, bining on al sbseqent pnes o he cout o ppes, on teBIA d on tis cot he B holds tt receipt o stolen propety hich (as s the case eehas as an eleent knowlede tht the prope s stoen is sucienty contra to accepted ovaues to be trpiinous aer f Sala/ 17 I N ec 19 2 (BIA 1979); aer fael 1 IN ec 212 (BIA 97) ar f 7 lN Dec 23 (B 196) aer 6l ec 746 (BIA 9)

Respondent asserts that recept of stolen property s not a crie of oral turpitude citingCailCruz Hlder 81 114 (t ir 29) Call-Cruz reaches this resut bydiscussing BIA cases wich hold that convicton e hich oes not invove a inent topernently depive the oner of prope is not oally turptudinous Accordng toCallCruz receipt o stolen popey does not have as n eeent te inten to peanentlyeprive the owner o the propery an it is therere not tutinos Tis interettion isconary to lia w

ali cots hod tt he ere receip o stolen oods ih knowledge at they

have bee stoen n e a cre

if the propety as eceived with intent to restore it o theowne without rewrd or ith any other ocent ntent eple Wegra 1 al pp d488 494 198) (epasis dde) I a dendnt convnces te ury tht when he received thestoen property he intened to etu it to the right owner, this i absove [the dendt] oft" eple Dman 128 a pp d 77 72122 1982)

nde Gnzale Duenalarez 49 S 183 27) respondent ust show reistic pobbity, not a theoretcl possbli tt he cod be convicted under isinteretation o te satute t e cses cited above so s tht t is restcally mbler defendat to be convcted under a enl ode Section 496 if he intends t te te tecrie is coplete to retu stolen prope to ts oner rther tn keep t sef

Whle stn that the cot od accor substtial deence to establised

1 Two ecent pubishe decisions o te alia ppete courts are n accordeple Hall 29 WL 31938 (ept 29 29) t * 13; ele Car 24 W 25647(Sept 1 24) at *6



\

constuctions by the B of the stattes i is chged o admnse, 581 F 3d at 59,-uzas a practical matter, does no llow the BAs recedent decisions wih esect toreept of solen ropery I additio iuz does not lo, or een menton,Mmlejmp despite the ct that Mmejmp reresents the onion of e int

Circuit sttng en bnc

il-uz sets rt wo raonaes s First, the oinon saes a p 159 atPe 542 F 2d 796 (9 Cr 976), a in icu decision olding that receit of stolenpropey is a CIM, was made or o the adoption of he categorcal apoach of yl Unied Se 495 U.S 575 (990) But te BIA has sed he cateoical aproach to deterinewheher a crme is a CIT since at least 954 In the BIA cses cited aboe the Boarddeerined a receipt of solen roery w ttdnous based on n anass of the elementsof he oense, not the indiidual conduct of the oender, ic is of cose the essence of thecategorical approac, and ich Ty sml applied nationally r puoses of deralsentecing heaigs See eg See Me f Z, 7 I&N Dec 253 a 256 (setig he

eleents of Coectcts receipt of stolen propery statte and coclding, bsed on toseeleents hat it is apparet tha hs crime noled mora trpitude) Me R 6 I& Dec444 44748 (BIA 1954)

Second iuz states at pp 590 that te BIA has not, oweer, expresslyeld hat the recpet of solen proper hs commite a the oense ounting to a crime omorl turptude Bt the Board does not analyze receipt of stolen ropety using the elementsof geneic he On the cotrary, he Board has preousl ed tha receipt of stolen propeys not merel a suset" of the e the e dieGuee 25 &N ec 12 14(BI 2009) As noted aboe, what the BIA held is that the pariclar oense of owng

eceit of stolen pope s uidinousIn ddtion the Second, hird and Fh Circuts all agree that receipt of stolen property is

a crime of moral urptde. Mce IS 20 F 3d 253 2d Cir 2000) Deen Reyn c 293 F 3d 33 (3d Cir 2002); nied Se 26 F 3d 57 (5th Cir 994)

Lasl e cor of apeas hought that the BA's cases on recept of solen properywere in tensio with the Boards cases on te, the cort of apeals should hae remanded thecas to the BIA r an exostion of te oards iews See Gnze Tm 547 US 83,186 (2006) (sary reersal where he nth Crcut decde n the rs instance weher a

2 smilr not identcal, problem is presened by be-e de 67 F. d702 9 Cir 202) nd nci de 704 F d 20 9 Ci. 03)

3 It shoul be noted hat the isses raise aboe regding recei of stolen properaply eqally to lezReyng Hoder, 596 F 3d 534 {9 Ci. 2009) whic os thatrecet of stoen atomobile (Cal enal Code Secto 496d(a)) is no a CIM eclsiely b acitation iluz

3



. �,i

fmiy s sci gru insted f remanig t he BI; INS v. Orlando Ventura 537 .12 (2002) summ reers here he Ninh Cicuit decided in the rs instce hehercuntr cnditins hd mteiy chged inste f remnng t the BIA

In suement brief ed n Jue 27 203 resndent mkes seer rgumets ry Casillo-Cruz shd be cnring in this cse Nne e iin Fis, resndetrgues tht cicti r receit f sten re cud" icrte te eemets f the.Bu he uy instructins hich resndent cies merey ride suement guidnce t ur n the denitin f the rd sten" i he hrse "receit f solen rey The citedinsuctins d nt cnert receit f sten rery int te

ecd, resndet ctends t receit f sten rey nd the re interrete inregd t e intent necessay r cnictin." uement Brief t . 4 But te iscussinhich s is n mre thn eitertin f it mde be namey tht it is dense t chrge f receit f sen rer tht the end iended t ret e sten rey t the

er.

Resndent s rges tht MarmolejoCampos nd Caillo-Cruz e nt incnsistet,b s se h be, they re ite cery ireccibe. Resdent s sses th therere n bindi BI recedents n recei f sten rer, but the binding receets hebee cited be asty, resndet sses tht Casillo-Cruz nd nthing ese, is bindin this cur. the esns set r be, his cu ct gree.

This cu is bigted w armolejo-Camo n the cntoin B receensfaer of Sa/val ater o Pael aer ofZ nd atter of Bsed n thse cses the

cur ds th resndent's cniti r receit f sten rey is ctegricy crime fmr tuitude.

Te Br hs the hriy t ddress the isses rise heein ursunt t aional able& Telecommuncatons Asoc. v. Brand X Inerne Serice 55 . 967 (2005) See atter oCoreeina 26 N Dec 79 B 203) hding, tht iecent exse uner Cii is CIMT, in cdisticin t Nunez v Holder 59 F 3 12 (9 h Cir 124))Heer, the Br has hed tht ny the Brd c inke Brand X Cortes-edia supra t86 The resnent, thrugh cunse, hs stte he recr ht he is seeing n reief mem her tn djustment f sttus, nd he is nt eigibe r untry deure becuse fhis ggted ny cnictin Accrdiny, this cse is cetied t the BI to detemine, in

the rst insce, hether the resdent is eigibe r the ny reief he sees

nthny MImmitin Jde

juan gabriel rodriguez, a092 389 472 (bia jan. 17, 2014)

Documents