# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 36 68

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Edu ard o Ad am e-Her na nd ez

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

W il li am P. Barr, At to rn ey

Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 15, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 16, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Edu ard o Ada m e-Her na nd ez, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Mex ic o, pe ti ti on s f or

rev ie w of an or de r of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (BIA) up ho ld in g th e de ci si on of an im m ig rat io n jud ge (IJ ) co nc lu di ng th at Ada m e-Her na nd ez was in el ig ib le fo r

can cel la ti on of rem ov a l be cau se of a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e an d be cau se Ada m e-Her na nd ez la ck ed th e r e q u is it e m or al ch arac te r. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2, we d en y th e p et it io n.In 19 94
, Ada m e-Her na nd ez en te red th e Uni te d St at es n e a r El Pas o, Tex as

wit ho ut be in g ad m it te d or pa ro le d an d wit h o u t i n s p e c ti on

. In Ju ne 20 09
, he pl ed

gu il ty in Neb ras ka st at e co ur t to dr iv in g un de r th e in flu en ce of dr ug s or al co ho l an d fal se rep or ti ng . Th e n ex t m on th , Adam e-Her na nd ez p le d gu il ty, ag ai n in Neb ras ka

st at e co ur t, to two m or e ch arg es of dr iv in g un de r th e in flu en ce of dr ug s or al co ho l an d fal se rep or ti ng

. Ada m e-Her na nd ez was su bs eq ue nt ly se rv ed wit h a Not ic e to App ear, ch arg in g hi m wit h rem ov ab il it y

. Thro ug h co un se l, Ada m e-Her na nd ez ad m it te d th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s in th e Not ic e to App ear, co n c e d e d r em ov ab il it y , a nd de si gn at ed
Mex ic o a s t he co un try of rem ov al

.

Ada m e-Her na nd ez th en fil ed an ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al
, whi ch

t h e I J de ni ed

. The IJ co nc lu de d th at , ba se d on hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r fal se rep or ti ng , Ada m e-Her na nd ez was st at ut or il y in el ig ib le fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al
, pu rs ua nt to 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b. The IJ ex am in ed th e st at ut e o f co nv ic ti on , Neb. Rev . S ta t. § 28

- 90 7, an d de te rm in ed th at at le as t on e of Ada m e-Her na nd ez’s co nv ic ti on s was un de r

su bs ect io n (1 )(a)
, whi ch in cl ud ed an ex pl ic it el em en t of in te nt to de cei ve , ren de rin g th e cri m e cat eg or ic al ly on e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e. Bas ed on th is co nc lu si on , th e IJ de te rm in ed th at Ada m e-Her na nd ez was in el ig ib le fo r can ce l l a t i o n of rem ov al be cau se hi s co nv ic ti o n bo th ba rred a fin di ng of go od m or al ch arac te r an d was a
st at ut or il y sp eci fie d of

fen se th at ba rred can cel la ti on

. Ada m e-Her na nd ez ap pe al ed to th e BIA. Th e BIA affi rm ed th e IJ
, si m il arl y co nc lu di ng th at hi s fal se rep or ti ng

co nv ic ti on s were cat e g or ic al ly cri m es in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e an d ren de red hi m
st at ut or il y in el ig ib le fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. Thi s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w fo ll owe d, wit h Adam e-Her na nd ez agai n arg ui ng th at hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r fal se rep or ti ng un de r Neb ras ka law d o n ot qu al ify as cri m es in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e.

“ Alt ho ug h we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e ul ti m at el y di sc ret io na ry de ni al of

c a n c e l l a ti on of rem ov al
, 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (B), we are no t pr ecl ud ed fro m

co ns id eri ng co ns ti t u t i o n al cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of la w rai se d up on a pe ti ti on fo r

rev ie w, § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D).” M i r a n d a-Ro m ero v. Ly nc h, 79 7 F.3 d 52 4, 52 5 (8 th Ci r.

-2

-20 15 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e co nd uc t de no vo rev ie w of

co ns t it ut io na l cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of la w, “ acco rd in g su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e to th e
ag en cy ’s in te rp ret at io n of im m ig r a t i o n s ta tu te s an d reg ul at io ns .” Id

. (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

“ The Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act pr ov id es th at an al ie n who is co nv ic te d of a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e is in el ig ib le fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al
, whe re th e of fen se is pu ni sh ab le by a se nt en ce of on e y ear or lo ng er. Id. (ci t i n g 8 U

. S .C. §§ 12 29 b, 12 27 (a)( 2) (A)(i )). Bu t th e I N A d o e s no t de fin e “ cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e”; “ th e m ean in g of the ph ras e was le ft to fu tu re adm in is tra ti ve an d judi ci al i n t erp ret at io n.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Co ur ts ha ve si nc e de f i n e d cri m es in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e as “ req ui r[i ng ] co nd uc t th at is in he ren tl y ba se , vi le
,
or de pr av ed
, an d co nt rary to acce pt ed ru le s of m or al it y an d th e du ti es owe d be twee n
pe rs on s or to so ci et y in ge ne ral .” Gua rd ad o- Garci a v. Hol de r, 61 5 F.3 d 90 0, 90 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Fu rth er, “ [c]rim es in vo lv in g th e in te nt
to de cei ve or de frau d are ge ne ral ly c o n s i d e r e d to in vo lv e m or al tu rp it ud e.” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

In de te rm in in g whe th er a sp eci fic co nv ic ti on is on e fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e, we fir st co n s i d e r w h e th er th e “ st at ut e [o f co nv ic ti on ] de fin es a cri m e in whi ch m or al tu rp it ud e ne ces sa ril y in he res [.]” Ch an m ou ny v. Ash cro ft, 37 6 F.3 d 81 0,
81 2- 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . If so , “ th e co nv ic ti on is fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp i t u d e f o r im m ig rat io n pu rp os es , an d ou r an al y si s

en ds .” Id

. at 81 2. Bu t whe re “ th e st at ut e co nt ai ns so m e of fen se s whi ch in vo lv e m or al

tu rp it ud e an d ot he rs w h i c h do no t, it is to be tre at ed as a ‘div is ib le ’ st at ut e, an d we lo ok to th e reco rd of co nv ic ti on , m ean in g th e in di ct m en t, pl ea, ve rd ic t, an d se nt en ce,
to de te rm in e th e o ffen se of wh ic h t he res po nd en t was co nv ic te d.” Id.

Ada m e-Her na nd ez ha s two co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol at in g Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07

. Bec au se Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28

- 9 0 7 ha s va rio us su bs ect io ns , so m e of whi ch do no t

-3

-ne ces sa ril y in vo lv e m or al tu rp it ud e, we rel y on th e reco rd s of co nv ic ti on to de te rm in e

un de r whi ch sp eci fic su bs ect io n Ada m e-Her na nd ez was ch arg ed

. The reco rd rev eal s th at on e of Ada m e-Her na nd ez’s fal se rep or ti ng co nv ic ti on s un di sp ut ed ly fal ls un de r Neb . Rev . Sta t. § 28 -9 07 (1 )(a) , whi ch pro vi de s:

[a] pe rs on co m

m it s th e of

fen se of fal se rep or ti ng if he o r sh e

. . . [f]urn is he s m at eri al in fo rm at io n he or sh e kn ows to be fal se to an y pe ace of fic er or ot he r of

fic ia l wit h th e in te nt to in st ig at e an in ve st ig at io n of an al le ge d cri m in al m at te r or to im pe de th e in ve st ig at io n of an a c t u al cri m in al m at te r[.]

A pe rs on who vi ol at es th is su bs ect io n faces a m ax im um of “ no t m or e th an on e y ear im pr is on m en t.” Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 2 8

- 1 0 6 ( 1 ) ; Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07 (2 )(a)

. The Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed fal se rep or ti ng un de r Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28

- 90 7( 1) (a) to in cl ud e th ree el em en ts : (1 ) “ a fal se st at em en t to a pe ace of fic er; [(2 )]

. . . gi ve n wit h th e in te nt to im pe de an in ve st ig at io n; an d [(3 )] th e in ve st ig at io n m us t be of an act ua l cri m in al m at te r.” St at e v

. Ew i n g , 37 8 N.W .2d 15 8, 16 2 (Neb

. 19 85 ). Und er th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t’s own ex pl an at io n, a co nv ic ti on un de r t h i s

su bs ect io n req ui res th at th e de fen da nt act wit h so m e in te nt to de cei ve a pe ace of fic er. A co nv ic ti on un d er Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07 (1 )(a) is th us a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e th at ren de rs a pe ti ti on er s t a t u t o ril y in el ig ib le fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. See Gu ard ad o- Garci a, 61 5 F .3d at 9 02

.

Ada m e-Her na nd ez arg ue s th at ou r de ci si on in Bo ba di ll a v. Hol de r 67 9 F.3 d
10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), is di sp os it iv e. The re, th e Co ur t rem an de d to th e BIA fo r fu rth er de te rm in at io n of whe th er an al ie n’s co nv ic ti on un de r a Mi nn es ot a st at ut e fo r gi vi ng

a fal se na m e to a po li ce of fic er was a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e. Id

. at 10 57 -5 8.
Bo ba di ll a ex pr es sl y li m it ed it s di sc us si on to th e “ in te nt to ob st ru ct jus ti ce” req ui red

un de r th e Mi nn es ot a st at ut e, co nc lu di ng th at th e “ br oa d, u nd efi ne d t erm ” co ul d no t

crea te an of

fen se th at cat eg or ic al ly qu al ifi ed as a c rime in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e. Id

. at 10 58

. Neb ras ka ’s fal se -re p o r ti ng st at ut e in vo lv es a na rro wer sc ie nt er

-4

-req ui rem en t: th e in te nt to im pe de a n a c tu al cri m in al in ve st ig at io n. Thi s al le vi at es

an y co nc ern th at Ada m e-Her na nd ez’s co nv ic ti on co ul d ha ve be en fo r a cri m e th at di d

no t in vo lv e m or al tu rp it ud e, or th at “ ev ery pe rs on who i n t e n t i on al ly m ak es a
g o v ern m en t of

fic ia l’s ta sk m or e di ffi cu lt is gu il ty of ‘inh eren tl y ba se , vi le
, o r de pr av ed ’ co nd uc t.” See id

. Alt ho ug h th e Bo ba di ll a pa ne l, in di ct a, po nd ered ho w gi vi ng a fal se na m e fit wit hi n th e br oa de r de fin it io n of “ ob st ru ct io n of j us ti ce,” th at di sc us si on do es no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on th at , ba se d on th e Neb ras ka Su pr em e Co ur t’s reci ta ti on of th e el em en ts of § 28 -9 07 (1 )(a)
, th e of fen se req ui res an in te nt to de cei ve

. And “ Bo ba di ll a do es no t al te r th e pr in ci pl e th at “ [c]r i mes i n v o lv in g th e in te nt to de cei ve

. . . are ge ne ral ly co ns id ered to in vo lv e m or al tu rp it ud e.” Vil la to ro v. Hol de r, 76 0 F.3 d 87 2, 87 8 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e de cl in e to rel y on an in t e r p r e t a t i o n of

an ot he r s t a t e ’s fal se -rep or ti ng st at ut e, co ns id ered in th e co nt ex t of rem ov ab il it y , t o

co nc lu de th at Ada m e-Her na nd ez ha s m et hi s bu rd en of sh owi ng en ti tl em en t to

can cel la ti on of r em ov al

.

Ada m e-Her na nd ez’s arg um en t th at th e IJ an d BIA bo th erre d be cau se on ly on e

o f h i s co nv ic ti on s was un di sp ut ed ly un de r Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07 (1 )(a ) i s

un pe rs ua si ve

. Ada m e-Her na nd ez is c o rrec t th at th e st at e co ur t reco rd fo r on ly on e of hi s co nv ic ti on s ex pl ic it ly m en ti on s su b s e c t i o n (1 )(a) ; th e reco rd fo r th e ot he r

co nv ic ti on on ly refe rs to Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07 an d do es no t m ak e refe ren ce to a
sp eci fic su bs ect io n. Howev er, th is is im m at eri al to ou r a n a lysis be cau se a si ng le

co nv ic ti on un de r su bs ect io n (1 )(a) is su ffi ci en t to tri gg er in el ig ib il it y fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. See Mi ran da -Ro m ero , 79 7 F.3 d at 52 6 (d en y in g pe ti ti on f or rev ie w whe re IJ an d BIA fo un d pe ti ti on er in el ig ib le fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al ba se d on a si n g l e co nv ic ti on fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e). Bec au se fal se rep or ti ng

un de r Neb

. Rev

. St at

. § 28 -9 07 (1 )(a) is c a t e g o r i cal ly a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al

tu rp it ud e an d Ada m e- H er na nde z un di sp ut ed ly ha s a co nv ic ti on un de r th is su bs ect io n,

-5

-th e IJ an d BIA co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Ada m e-Her na nd ez was in el ig ib le fo r

can cel la ti on of r em ov al

. W e th us de ny the pe ti ti on for rev ie w. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

Fo r th e fir st ti m e in hi s repl y br ie f, Ada m e-Her na nd ez argu ed th at th e “ pe tt y 1 of fen se ” ex cep ti on to th e st at ut or y ba r fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov a l b a s e d o n a
co nv ic ti on fo r a cri m e in vo lv in g m or al tu rp it ud e ap pl ie s. Howev er, Ada m eHern an de z ha s waiv ed th is arg um en t b y f ai li ng to rai se it in hi s op en in g br ie f. Je nk in s v

. W in te r, 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Cl ai m s no t rai se d in an op en in g b rie f are de em ed waiv ed .”).

-6

-