1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 2644

___________ GARVI N BOBB, P eti ti o n er v . TH E A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 76- 493- 189) Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le H e n ryS . D o g in

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February22, 2010 B efor e: SC I R I C A , C H A G A R E S and W E I S, C i r cui tJ udges

O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay11, 2010

___________ OP I NI ON

_____________ W E IS , C ir c u it J u d g e .

Pet i t i onerG arvi n B obb, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of T r i ni dad and Tobago, e n ter e d th e U n ited S tate s a s a v isito r in A p ril 1 9 8 9 . H e sh o rtlyth e re a f ter c h a n g e d h is2

sta tu s to a n o n -im m ig ra n t stu d e n t. In Ja n u a ry2 0 0 1 , h e p led g u iltyin N e w Je rse ysta te courtt o thr ee c ount s of off i ci al m i s conducti n vi ol at i on of N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 30- 2, w h ich , in r e lev a n t p a rt, p ro v id e s:

“ A p u b lic s e rv a n t is g u ilty o f o f f icia l m isc o n d u c t w h e n , w ith p u rp o se to o b tain a b e n e f it f o r h im se lf o r a n o th e r o r to in ju re o r to d e p riv e a n o th e r o f a b e n e f it: a. H e comm i t s an ac tr el at i ng t o hi s offi ce butcons t i tut i n g an unauthor i zed exer ci s e of hi s offi ci al funct i ons , know i ng that s uch act i s unauthor i zed orhe i s comm i t t i ng s uch ac ti n an unauthor i zed manner ; or b . H e k n o w in g lyre f

ra in s f ro m p e rf o rm in g a d u tyw h ich is im p o se d u p o n h im b yla w o r i s c le a rl yin h e re n t in th e n a tu re o f h is o f f ic e .” T he s t at e pr os ecut i on ar os e outof B obb’ s al l eged s exual conductw i th thr ee m in o r c h ild re n w h e n h e w a s e m p lo y e d a s a c o u n s e lo r a t a n in s titu tio n f o r a b u s e d g ir ls . T h e G o v ern m en t sou g h t t o rem o v e B o b b p u rsua n t t o 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i i) , as s ert i ng thathe w as convi ct ed of tw o orm or e cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude not ar i s i ng outof a s i ngl e s cheme of cr i m i nal conduct . T he I m m i gr at i on J udge conc l uded, i nt eral i a, thatthe off

i ci al m i s conductchar ges cons t i tut ed cr i m es of m or al turpi tude and thatthos e cr i m es di d notar i s e outof a s i ngl e cr i m i nal m i s conducts cheme.

T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls d ism iss e d B o b b ’s c o u n se led a p p e a l. T w o m ember s of the pane l hel d t hatthe convi ct i ons qual i fi ed as cr i m es of m or al turpi tude beca us e the cha r gi ng document s r evea l ed ac t s “i nvol vi ng a betr ay al of publ i c trus tfor [B ob b’s] ow n g rat i fi cat i on as w el l as the sexu al exp l oit at i on of som e of the m ost vul ner abl e mem ber s of s oci ety ” and s uch ac t s , i n turn, w er e “i nher ent l ybas e, vi l e,3

depr aved, and contr aryt o t he ac cept ed rul es of m or al i tyand the dut i es ow ed betw een per s ons ort o s oci etyi n gener al . ” The B I A al s o r eas oned that

“[e ] ven as s um i ng . . . s om e vi ol at i ons of the N ew J er s ey offe ns e of of

fi ci al m i s conductw oul d notqual i fyas cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude . . . , a pr opos i t i on w e ar e not pr epar ed t o conce de, the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s for th e T h ird C irc u it h a s h e ld th a t, ‘[w ]h e re a sta tu te c o v e rs b o th tu rp itu d in o u s a n d n o n -t u rp itu d in o u s a c ts . . . , it is “ d iv is ib le ,” and w e then l ook t o t he r ecor d of convi ct i on t o det erm i ne w h e th e r th e a lien w a s c o n v icte d u n d e r th a t p a rt o f th e sta tu te defi ni ng a cr i m e of mora l turpi tude. ’ Par tyka v. A t t orney G en era l of

the U n it ed S tat es, 41 7 F . 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 1 -12 (3d C ir . 2005) . C f. al s o C anada v. G onzal es , 448 F. 3d 560, 567- 68 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s n o ted a b o v e, [B o b b ’s] co n v ict ion rec o rd c l e a r l yma n i f

e s t s th e mo r a l l ytu rp i tu d i n o u s n a tu r e o f th e c r i me of w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. ” (s e c o n d a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l) .

B obb fi l ed a pr o s e pet i t i on forr evi ew w i th thi s C our t , and w e r emanded the mat t er , r eques t i ng thatthe B I A “cl as s i fy [ ] i t s anal y s i s of the di vi s i bl e s t atut e i s s ue underPar tyka. ”

In a sing le-m em b er d ec isi o n , the B IA ag ain d ism issed B o b b ’s admi ni s tr at i ve appe al , s t at i ng, “W e s ee nothi ng i n the r ecor d ori n T hi r d C i r cui tl aw t hat w oul d caus e us t o r econs i der ” the ea r l i erj udgm ent . T he B I A not ed thatthe “gr avamen”4

of the off

ens e w as “the know i ng abus e of a uthor i tybya publ i c off i ci al , w ho betr ay s t he p u b lic tru st e ith e r to b e n e f it h im se lf

o r to h a rm a n o th e r.” T h e B IA h e ld th a t B o b b “ is depor t abl e eve n i f w e as s um e ar guendo . . . s om e vi ol at i ons . . . ar e non- turpi tudi nous . ” T he B I A r ei t er at ed i t s fi ndi ngs thatthe i ndi ctm ental l eged s exual conductw i th thr ee m in o r p a tien ts a n d th a t su c h a c ts in v o lv e d m o ra l tu rp itu d e . L ik e w ise , itre a f f irm e d its p re v io u s f

in d in g w ith re s p e c t to th e e x is te n c e o f a s in g le s c h e m e o f

c ri m in a l m is c o n d u c t. In th e e n d , the B IA f

o u n d B o b b d e p o rta b le a s c h a rg e d . B o b b f iled a p e tit io n f

o r re v iew in th is C o u rt. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . T he G overnm entfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, ar gui ng thatw e do not have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a fi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en found r emovabl e for havi ng been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e of mora l turpi tude. See 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . T hat j ur i s di ct i on- s tr i ppi ng pr ovi s i on appl i es onl yw hen the al i en i s actual l y“deport abl e by r eas on of havi ng been c onvi ct ed of one of the enumer at ed off ens es [, ] ” and w e, i n turn, have j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne w hethers uch a c onvi ct i on actual l yexi s t s . D r akes v. Z i m s ki , 240 F. 3d 246, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n the curr entpr ocee di ngs , B obb ar gues t hat the B I A comm i t t ed err or s of l aw w i th r es pectt o the i s s ue of mora l turpi tude. See A l aka v. A t t ’ yG en. , 456 F. 3d 88, 102 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( thi s C our tr et ai ns j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “pur e ques t i ons of l aw , and . . . appl i cat i on of l aw t o fac t , w her e the fa ct s ar e undi s put ed an d n o t th e su b

ject of ch all en g e” (K am ara v . A tt ’yG en . , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir .5

2 0 0 5 )) ). T h e re f

o re , w e w ill d e n yth e G o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n to d is m is s . W e r evi ew the B I A ’ s concl us i ons of l aw de novo, W ang v. A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , and “w e ow e no def er ence t o the [a dm i ni s tr at i ve] i nt erpr et at i on of a s t at e cr i m i nal s t atut e. ” Partyka, 417 F. 3d at411 ( ci t i ng K napi k v. A s h c ro f t, 3 8 4 F .3 d 8 4 , 8 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . A s w e r ecogni zed i n Par tyka, the oft en- compl i cat ed i s s ue of mora l turpi tude m andat es a “c at egor i cal appr oach. ” 417 F. 3d at411. “W hetheran al i en’ s cr i m e i nvol ves m or al turpi tude i s det erm i ned bythe cr i m i nal s t atut e and the r ecor d of convi ct i on, nott he a lie n ’s c o n d u c t.” Id . A c c o rd in g ly,

“[W ]e r ead the app l i cable s t atute t o ascert ai n the l east cul pabl e conduc tnece s s aryt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on underthe s t a tu t e . As a g e n e r a l ru l e , a c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e d e f i n e s a c r i me in v o lv in g ‘m o ra l tu rp itu d e o n lyif a ll o f th e c o n d u c t it p ro h ib its is tu rp itu d in o u s.’ W h e re a sta tu te c o v e rs b o th tu rp itu d in o u s a n d n o n -tu rp itu d in o u s a c ts, h o w e v e r, itis ‘d iv isib le,’ a n d w e th e n lo o k to th e re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n to det erm i ne w hetherthe al i en w as convi ct ed underthatpartof the s t atut e def

i ni ng a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude. Id . (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

W e r e- aff

i r m ed Partyka’ s m odi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach i n J ean- L oui s v. A t t orneyG ener al , 582 F. 3d 462 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . I n thatcas e, w e r ej ect ed the A t t orney G ener al ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the cr i m es of m or al turpi tude s t atut e w hi ch w oul d haveT he B IA referred i n p assi ng t o the “[t ]he gravam en o f t his off ense, ” and i tal so 1 o b se rv e d , in r e

jec tin g B o b b ’s s p e e d in g tick e t h yp o th e tica l, th a t a c o n v ictio n w o u ld re q u ire p ro o f

“ th a t th e p o lice o f

f ice r re f ra in e d f ro m iss u in g a tick e t ‘w ith p u rp o se to obt ai n a bene fi tforhi m s el f oranotherort o i nj ur e ort o depr i ve anotherof a be nefi t . ’ ” N e v e rth e les s, th e B IA still d id n o t co n d u c t a s p e c if ic e x a m in a tio n o f

th e e lem e n ts to a s c e rt a in th e le a s t c u lp a b le c o n d u c t n e c e s s a ry f o r a c o n v ic tio n . 6 d e p a rte d f

ro m th e c a teg o ric a l an a ly sis in f a v o r o f a n in d iv id u a lize d in q u iryin to f a c ts out s i de of the r ecor d of convi ct i on. I d. at473- 74. I ns t ead, w e r ei t er at ed that“the ce nt r al inq u iryis w h ethe r m o ral de p rav ityinh ere s in the crim e o r i ts el em en ts – n o t th e a li en ’s under l y i ng conduct . ” I d. at477.

D iv isib ili ty , in th is c o n tex t, ref e rs to a sta tu te w h ich is d iv id e d in to d isc re te s ubs ect i ons defi ni ng cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude and c r i m es noti nvol vi ng m or al turpi tud e. P adil l a v. G on zal es, 39 7 F . 3d 10 16 , 10 19 (7th C i r. 20 05 ); see al so Jean-L ou i s, 582 F. 3d at474 n. 16. H er e, ther e ar e onl ytw o s ubs ect i ons of the s t atut e, and B obb w as u n d o u b tedlyco n v ict ed u n d er se cti o n (a); th ere fo re, th ere is no n ee d to ex am ine th e re co rd t o det erm i ne w hi ch w as the s ubs ect i on of convi ct i on. R ather , the r el evantques t i on, under P a rtyk a ’s c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h , is w h e th e r th e lea st c u lp a b le c o n d u c t n e c e ss a ryto su sta in a convi ct i on unders ect i on ( a) of the s t atut e w oul d be a c r i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude.

T h e B IA su g g ested that ev en the lea st cu lpab le co n d u ct ne ce ssaryfo r a c o n v ictio n q u a lifie s a s a c rim e in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e . T h e B IA , h o w e v e r, m a d e th is s ugges t i on w i thoutdi s cus s i ng the s peci fi c el ement s of the cr i m e orci t i ng anyN ew J er s ey cas e l aw i nt erpr et i ng the cr i m i nal s t atut e. Fur ther , B obb’ s fai l ur e t o i dent i fyanyi ns t ance 1B oth the B I A and the G overnm ents eem t o be underthe mi s t aken i m pr es s i on that 2 B obb w as convi ct ed of a s exual m i s conductoffe ns e and, thus , theyfocus on the mora l depr avi tyof the fa ct s under l y i ng B obb’ s cr i m e. I n per form i ng the ca t egor i cal appr oach, how ever , w e have r epea t edl y“ca ut i oned aga i ns tgoi ng bey ond the off ens e as char ged and s crut i ni z[i ng] the under l y i ng fac t s of a c as e t o det erm i ne w hethera cr i m e i nvol ves m or al turpi tude. ” K napi k v. A s hcr oft , 384 F. 3d 84, 91 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itte d ) ( a lte ra tio n in o ri g in a l) . 7 w h e re th e N e w Je rse ya u th o rities p ro se c u ted a n o n -tu rp itu d in o u s o f f e n se is n o t a r equi r ementunderthe ca t egor i cal anal y s i s . See J ean- L oui s , 582 F. 3d at481 ( r ej ect i ng a r equi r ementthatpet i t i onerm us ts how a “‘ r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i ty ’ thatthe s t atut e of co n v ict ion w o u ld b e a p p li ed to n o n -tu rpitu d ino u s co n d u ct”). 2

T he G overnm entar gues thatthe know i ng and purpos eful m i s us e of a pos i t i on of publ i c trus tr ender s al l vi ol at i ons of the s t atut e turpi tudi nous . W e ar e not per s uaded thatthe l eas tcul pabl e conduc tunderN . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 30- 2( a) m eet s the d e f in itio n o f a c ri m e o f

m o ra l tu rp itu d e . I n or derforan off

ens e t o be cl as s i fi ed as s uch, i tm us ti nvol ve conduc tt hat i s “i nher ent l ybas e, vi l e, ordepr aved. ” J ean- L oui s , 582 F. 3d at465 ( quot i ng K napi k, 384 F. 3d at89) . T he s t atut e appe ar s t o cont ai n an el ementof “e vi l purpos e” or“corrupt i on” w hi ch w e have gener al l yi dent i fi ed as a hal l m ark of a c r i m e of mora l turpi tude. See J eanL oui s , 582 F. 3d at469; s ee a l s o St at e v. G l ei t s m ann, 161 A . 2d 747 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1960) . I n G l ei t s m ann, the N ew J er s eySuper i orC our t , i nt erpr et i ng the comm on l aw cr i m e of mi s conducti n offi ce - - a pr ecur s ort o N . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 30- 2 - - s t at ed that offi ci al m i s conductcont ai ns a w i l ful nes s el ement , m eani ng “‘ an evi l purpos e orm ent al8

cul pabi l i ty , ’ a conc eptw hi ch i s oft en l abel l ed ‘ cr i m i nal i nt ent , ’ ‘ gui l tyknow l edge, ’ ‘ m ens re a ,’ ‘ b a d p u rp o s e ’ o r ‘ c o rr u p tio n .’” 1 6 1 A .2 d a t 7 4 9 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ).

M ent al cul pabi l i ty , how ever , i s onl yone as pectof the mora l turpi tude anal y s i s , as “the hal l m ark of m or al turpi tude i s a r epr ehens i bl e ac tcomm i t t ed w i th an a p p re c iab le le v e l o f

c o n sc io u sn e ss o r d e lib e ra tio n .” P a rtyk a , 4 1 7 F .3 d a t 4 1 4 . T h e sta tu te does notr equi r e an unde r l y i ng cr i m i nal actand ca n i nvol ve ac t s thatar e l egal and i nnocuous w hen per form ed bya non- publ i c off i ci al orbya publ i c off

i ci al i n an a u th o ri z e d m a n n e r. S e e S ta te v . P a rk e r, 5 9 2 A .2 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 5 (N .J . 1 9 9 1 ). I n G le its m a n n , a pol i ce c apt ai n w as convi ct ed of of fi ci al m i s conductforhi s per s onal us e of a pol i ce c ar and muni ci pal t el ephone. 161 A . 2d at748, 750- 51. I n anotheri ns t ance , the s t atut e w as us ed t o convi cta vol unt eerfi r efi ght erw ho m ade f al s e fi r e al arm s i n or dert o r ece i ve the “j oyorgr at i fi cat i on of part i ci pat i ng i n the r es pons e. ” St at e v. Q ueze da, 953 A . 2d 1206, 1 2 0 8 (N .J. S u p e r. C t. A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 8 ). In a th ird c a se , the e x e c u tiv e d ire c to r o f a c o u n ty comm uni tydevel opm entoffi ce w as i ndi ct ed underN . J . St at . A nn. § 2C : 30- 2 for di s bur s i ng funds w i thoutfol l ow i ng pr operadmi ni s tr at i ve pr ocedur es and w i thoutthe co n sen t of

the m u n ici p al co u n cil . S tat e v . M aiora n n a, 54 2 A . 2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 1 -12 (N . J. S u p er. C t. L a w D iv . 1 9 8 8 ).

In e ss e n c e , alm o st a n yo f f icia l ac t w ill f

u llyd o n e w ith o u t au th o riz a tio n in th e c o u rs e o f

a p u b lic s e rv a n t’ s e m p lo ym e n t m a yb e p ro s e c u te d u n d e r § 2 C :3 0 -2 . W e cannots aythatal l , oreven most , of thes e ac t s i nvol ve conduc tof i nher entbas enes s or9

d e p ra v ityw h ich c h a ra c ter ize s m o ra l tu rp itu d e . T h e re f o re , u n d e r th e lea st c u lp a b le conductt es t , the N ew J er s eycr i m e of of fi ci al m i s conductdoes notqual i fyas a cr i m e of m o ra l tu rp itu d e .

W e c o n c lu d e th a t B o b b is n o t re m o v a b le u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii) f o rh a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f tw o o rm o r e c r i m e s i n v o l v i n g m o r a l tu rp i tu d e . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e w i l l gr antthe pet i t i on, r ever s e the or derof the B I A , and r emand t he ca s e forfur ther p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n .