Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Department of Justice
Name: O -R , J S . A 814
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John
Userteam: Docket
Cite as: J-S-O-R-, AXXX XXX 814 (BIA Oct. 25, 2017)
tJ.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review
APPEAL
This case is before the Board pursuant to a July 29, 2015, order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which granted the Government's unopposed motion to remand. The
appeal will be sustained in part, and we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge.
This matter was last before the Board on August 18, 2014, when we dismissed the respondent's
appeal from the Immigration Judge's decision, dated February 7, 2013, denying the respondent's
application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)( l ). In our decision, we agreed with the Immigration Judge's
determination that the respondent had not established that his removal would result in exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 1
The Immigration Judge found that the respondent's conviction under Wash. Rev. Code
9.41.270 is a firearms conviction under section 237(a)(2)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.
1227(a)(2)(C), which rendered him statutorily ineligible for cancellation pursuant to section
240A(b)( l )(C) of the Act (IJ at 3-4). However, substantial intervening caselaw issued since the
Immigration Judge's decision warrants reconsideration of this issue. See Mathis v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016); Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013); Matter ofChairez
Castrejon, 26 l&N Dec. 819 (BIA 2016).
At all relevant times, Wash. Rev. Code 9.41.270 has provided as follows, in pertinent part:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm,
dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other
weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under
circwnstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate
another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
1 We declined to address whether the respondent's criminal record prevents him from establishing
Cite as: J-S-O-R-, AXXX XXX 814 (BIA Oct. 25, 2017)
814
Wash. Rev. Code 9.41.270 is "categorically overbroad" relative to the definition of "certain
fireann offenses" under section 237(A)(2)(C) of the Act. Because the state statute of conviction
includes conduct not covered by section 237(A)(2)(C) of the Act, which covers only misconduct
involving fireann s as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921, we consider whether the statute is divisible. See
United States v. Arriaga-Pinon, 852 F.3d 1195, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2017).
Mathis reaffirms Descamps while clarifying an important point: disjunctive statutory language
does not render a criminal statute divisible unless each statutory alternative defmes an independent
"element" of the offense, as opposed to a mere "brute fact" describing various means or methods
by which the offense can be committed. Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2248.5. The Mathis Court explained
they need neither be found by a jury nor admitted by a defendant. Elements are ''those
circumstances on which the jury must unanimously agree." United States v. Vega-Ortiz, 822 F.3d
1031, 1035 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, the pertinent statute describes various means by which the
offense can be committed.
In addition, Washington's pattern jury instructions for criminal cases (WPIC) also demonstrate
that Wash. Rev. Code 9.41.270 lists alternative "means." l l A WPIC is entitled "Unlawful
Display of a Weapon-Elements" and states, in relevant part: "(l) That on or about (date), the
defendant [carried] [exhibited] [displayed] [or] [drew] a [fireann] [dagger] [sword] [knife] [cutting
or stabbing instrument] [club] [or] [any [other] weapon apparently capable of producing bodily
hann ]." Thus, as the statute lists alternative means, the statute is not divisible. Only when a state
statute is both overbroad and divisible do we employ the modified categorical approach. See
Marinelarena v. Sessions, 14-72003, 2017 WL 3611589, at 3 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).
Consequently, as the Immigration Judge and this Board are not permitted to employ the
modified categorical approach, the respondent's conviction does not render him statutorily
ineligible under section 237(A)(2)(C) of the Act.2 See U.S. v. Ochoa, 861 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir.
2017) (federal statute that illegal reentry defendant was previously convicted of having conspired
2 While the Immigration Judge found the respondent had not met his burden to show eligibility
for relief, citing Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (en bane), that Court held that
a "petitioner cannot carry the burden of demonstrating eligibility for cancellation of removal by
establishing an inconclusive record of conviction." Here, however, while the respondent admitted
at his immigration hearing that his offense involved a fireann (U at 3; Tr. at 15-17), Moncrieffe
acknowledged that its analysis for determining whether a particular crime of conviction is
categorically a crime involving moral turpitude "is the same in both" the removal and cancellation
contexts and Moncrieffe therefore cannot be read to inform the relevant dispute in Young, which
pertained only to the operation of the burden of proof when the modified categorical approach
applies. See Marinelarenav. Sessions, 14-72003, 2017 WL 3611589, at 6 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2017).
Cite as: J-S-O-R-, AXXX XXX 814 (BIA Oct. 25, 2017)
814
to violate, merely provided alternative means of committing single crime; thus, court could not
employ "modified categorical" approach in deciding whether alien's conviction qualified as
predicate offense).
Because the respondent is not statutorily ineligible for cancellation due to his conviction under
Wash. Rev. Code 9.41.270 and the statutory cap had been met for the fiscal year in which the
We will therefore vacate the Immigration Judge's decision finding the respondent ineligible
for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act due to his conviction under
Wash. Rev. Code 9.41.270 and will remand the record for further proceedings. In so remanding,
we intimate no opinion regarding the respondent's ultimate eligibility for relief.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings
consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
"1
Cite as: J-S-O-R-, AXXX XXX 814 (BIA Oct. 25, 2017)