682 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2017), 14-70092, Paz-Valadez v. Sessions

Docket Nº:14-70092
Citation:682 Fed.Appx. 554
Party Name:ANTONIO PAZ-VALADEZ, AKA Juan Robles, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Attorney:For ANTONIO PAZ-VALADEZ, AKA Juan Robles, Petitioner: Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICE OF RICCI AND SPROULS, San Francisco, CA. For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department ...
Judge Panel:Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and HUFF,[***] District Judge.
Case Date:March 15, 2017
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 554

682 Fed.Appx. 554 (9th Cir. 2017)

ANTONIO PAZ-VALADEZ, AKA Juan Robles, Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent

No. 14-70092

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 15, 2017

Submitted March 13, 2017, [**] San Francisco, California

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A088-450-150.

For ANTONIO PAZ-VALADEZ, AKA Juan Robles, Petitioner: Frank P. Sprouls, Esquire, Attorney, LAW OFFICE OF RICCI AND SPROULS, San Francisco, CA.

For JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent: Laura M.L. Maroldy, Trial Attorney, Sheri Robyn Glaser, Trial Attorney, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, San Francisco, CA.

Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and HUFF,[***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Antonio Paz-Valadez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals's (" BIA" ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Whether a conviction is a crime involving moral turpitude (" CIMT" ) is a question of law we review de novo. Espino-Castillo v. Holder, 770 F.3d 861, 863 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in determining that Paz-Valadez's conviction for knowingly possessing a false identification document with intent to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(4) is categorically a CIMT because " intent . . . to defraud" is an element of the crime. See

Blanco v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 714, 719 (9th Cir. 2008) (" A crime involves fraudulent conduct, and thus is a [CIMT], if intent to defraud is either explicit in the statutory definition of the crime or implicit in the nature of the crime." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Espino-Castillo, 770 F.3d at 864 (recognizing that " [a] court may not apply the modified categorical approach if the statute proscribes only conduct that involves...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP