A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t3,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

HAR OON R AS HI D,

P eti ti o n er, v. A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, U ni t ed S tate s A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 05- 9535 ( N o. A 46- 188- 443) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , B RI S CO E , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i onerH ar oon R as hi d, a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentof the U ni t ed St at es and a na t i ve and c i t i zen of Paki s t an, w as pl ace d i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs bas ed on hi s convi ct i on i n a C ol or ado s t at e courtfort hi r d degr ee a s s aul t . R es pondent a s s e r t e d t h a tt h i s c o n v i c t i o n wa s a “ c r i me o f v i o l e n c e , ” a s d e fi n e d b y1 8 U. S . C.T he B I A char act er i zed the I J ’ s deci s i on as or der i ng M r . R as hi d r emoved 1 b ase d o n h is th ir d d eg ree assa u ltco n v ict ion . T h is i s ina cc u rate, g iven the IJ’s ori ginal order t erm i nati ng t he rem ov al proceed i ng s. In hi s orderaft er the fir st re m a n d , th e IJ o rd e re d M r. R a s h id re m o v e d b e c a u s e th e B IA d ir e c te d h im to .

- 2- § 1 6 , w h ich su bjec ted M r. R a sh id to re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii) and 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) . A n I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) det erm i ned thatthe thi r d degr ee as s aul tconvi ct i on w as nota cr i m e of vi ol ence , and t erm i nat ed the r emoval p r o c e e d i n g s . Re s p o n d e n ta p p e a l e d . T h e Bo a r d o f I mm i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BI A) r ever s ed and r emanded t o t he I J forthe mi ni s t er i al purpos e of r ece i vi ng i nt o the r ecor d var i ous document s pert ai ni ng t o the as s aul tconvi ct i on. T he I J then su p p lem e n ted th e re c o rd a n d o rd e re d M r. R a sh id re m o v e d to P a k ista n , p u rsu a n t to th e B IA ’s o rd e r. In a su b se q u e n t ap p e a l to th e B IA , the B IA o rd e re d M r. R a sh id d ep o rt ed . M r. R ash id fil ed a ti m elyp eti ti o n fo r rev iew b ythis co u rt . T h e B IA

1 d e n ie d M r. R a s h id ’s s u b s e q u e n t m o tio n to re c o n s id e r. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o det erm i ne i f M r . R as hi d i s r emovabl e “byr eas on of a cr i m i nal offe ns e l i s t ed i n [§ 1227] . ” Tap i a Ga r c i a v . I NS , 237 F. 3d 1216, 1220 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). W e d e n yth e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . Scope and Standar d of R evi ew R es pondentbear s t he bur den i n r emoval pr ocee di ngs t o pr ove bycl earand c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e a l i e n i s s u bj e c tt o r e mo v a l . 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(3 )(A ); Schr oeckv. G onz al es , 4 2 9 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). B ec au se th e B IA d id n o t ado p t anyrea so n ing o f th e IJ, w e re v iew o n lythe B IA ’s- 3-

o rd e rs . Kr a s t e v v . I

NS , 2 9 2 F . 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 5 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n d o i n g s o , we re v ie w d e n o v o th e B IA ’s d e te rm in a tio n s o f q u e s tio n s o f

la w . Fer nandez - Vargas v. G onz al es , 3 9 4 F .3 d 8 8 1 , 8 8 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), a ff’d1 2 6 S . C t. 2 4 2 2 (2 0 0 6 ). W e ar e not , how ever , “atl i ber t yt o s ear ch forgr ounds t o aff i r m thatw er e not r el i ed upon byt he age ncy . ” Uanr er or o v. G onz al es , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Stat utory Fra m ew ork T he i s s ue i s w hetherM r . R as hi d i s r emovabl e bas ed on hi s convi ct i on for t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t , i n v i o l a t i o n o f Co l o . Re v . S t a t . § 1 8 - 3 - 2 0 4 . Un d e r8 U. S . C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , an al i en i s s ubj ectt o r emoval i f he w as convi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . I n tur n, 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) i ncl udes i n the def i ni t i ons o f “ a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y ” th e te rm “ c ri m e o f v io le n c e ,” a s d e fin e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 . A cc o rdin g ly , w e m u st ev alua te th e B IA ’s de term ination that M r. R ash id’s C ol or ado thi r d degr ee a s s aul tconvi ct i on w as a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” under§ 16. T he term “cri m e of v i olence” m eans – ( a) an offens e thathas as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, or t hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof another , or ( b) anyot heroffe ns e thati s a fe l onyand that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k t hatphy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof anotherm aybe us ed i n t he cour s e of c om m i t t i ng the offens e. 18 U . S. C . § 16.P ursuantt o the st atute, t his cri m e i s a cl ass 1 m i sdem eano r, bu tbecau se 2 M r. R a s h id w a s s e n te n c e d to 4 0 1 d a y s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n , s ee R . at 65 , the B IA char act er i zed the convi ct i on as a fe l onyunderfede r al l aw . M r . R as hi d does not chal l enge thi s rul i ng.

- 4- T h e th ird d e g re e a ss a u lt statu te p ro v id e s: A per s on comm i t s t he cr i m e of a s s aul ti n the thi r d degr ee i f the per s on know i ngl yorr eckl es s l ycaus es bodi l yi nj uryt o another p e rso n o r w ith c rim in a l n e g lig e n c e th e p e rso n c a u se s b o d ilyinju ryto anotherper s on bym eans of a de adl yw eapon. C ol o. R ev. St at . § 18- 3- 204. 2 C at egor i calAppr oach W hen eva l uat i ng a convi ct i on under§ 16, “w e ar e t o us e the ‘ cat egor i cal appr oach, ’ underw hi ch a c our tm us tonl yl ook t o the s t atut orydefi ni t i on, nott he under l y i ng ci r cumst ance s of the cr i m e. ” Un itedS ta tes v . L u c io -L u c io , 347 F. 3d 1202, 1204 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . I f w e det erm i ne, how ever , t hat § 16 i s ambi guous , orbr oad enough t o encompas s a s pectrum of cr i m es , s om e of wh i c h wo u l d a n d s o me o f wh i c h wo u l d n o tc o n s t i tu t e a “ c r i me o f v i o l e n c e , ” we can l ook bey ond t he s t atut e t o cert ai n r ecor ds of the pr i orpr ocee di ng t o det erm i ne w h e th e r t h e ju ry w a s a c tu a lly re q u ir e d to m a k e fin d in g s re le v a n t to o u r a n a lysis . Tay lo rv . Un ite dS ta te s , 4 9 5 U.S . 5 7 5 , 602 ( 1990) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , w e may l ook at“the cha r gi ng paperand j ur yi ns truct i ons ” t o det erm i ne w hethert hey

“ a c tu a llyre q u ire d th e ju ryto fin d a ll th e e lem e n ts o f [ th e c rim e ] in o rd e r to convi ctt he defendant . ” Id. ; s ee She par d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 4 U . S . 1 3 , 2 3 (20 0 5 ).“C r i m e of vi ol ence ” i ncl udes “anyoffe ns e underfede r al , s t at e orl ocal l aw 3 t hathas as an el ementt he us e, att empt ed us e, ort hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a g a in s t th e p e rs o n o f

a n o th e r.” U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 , A p p lic a tio n N o te 1 (B )( iii) .

- 5- A n a lys is W e fi r s tc o n s i d e rwh e t h e rth e th i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l tc o n v i c t i o n wa s a c r i me of vi ol ence under§ 16( a) ( “an offens e thathas as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, ort hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof an o ther” ). T h is co u rth as d eterm ined that “the statu torylang u ag e o f C o lorad o ’s t hir d d egree assaul tst atute does no tnecessari l yi nclude t he u se or threat ened use of ‘ phy s i cal for ce. ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P er ez - Vargas , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 7 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) . I n P er ez - Vargas , w e eva l uat ed the C ol or ado s t atut e i n the cont extof t he fede r al s ent enci ng gui del i nes , s peci fi cal l y U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2. Id. a t 1 2 8 7 . 3 T he s ent enci ng gui del i ne ati s s ue i n P er ez - Vargas , § 2 L 1 .2 , is a lm o st id e n tica l to 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 (a ). Id. a t 1 2 8 6 n .3 ; a c c o rdUn itedS ta tes v . To rr e s-R u iz , 387 F. 3d 1179, 1187 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng “2L1. 2 defi nes t he phr as e ‘ aggr avat ed fe lo n y ’ b ye ffe c tiv e lyin c o rp o ra tin g th e d e fin iti o n o f ‘c rim e o f

v io len c e ’ fo u n d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 ” ). “A p rio r c o n v ictio n fo r th ird d e g re e a ss a u lt i n C o lo ra d o . . . is notcat egor i cal l ya cr i m e of vi ol ence underU SSG § 2L 1. 2. ” P erez- Varga s, 414 F. 3d at1287. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatM r . R as hi d’ s convi ct i on for thir d d eg ree assa u ltis no t categ o ri ca ll ya c ri m e o f v iolen ce u n d er § 1 6 (a).“C r i m e of vi ol ence ” r efe r s t o an offens e that“( 1) has an el ementt he us e, 4 att em p ted u se, or thre aten ed u se o f p h y sical fo rce ag ains t th e p erso n o f a n o ther, or( 2) i s bur gl aryof a dw el l i ng, ar s on, orext or t i on, i nvol ves t he us e of expl os i ves , orot herw i s e i nvol ves conductt hatpr es ent s a s er i ous r i s k of phy s i cal inju ry to a n o th e r.” U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .2 (a ).

- 6- W e n e x t tu rn to th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r M r. R a sh id ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n is cat ego ri cal l ya cri m e of v i olence un der § 16 (b) (“anyotheroffense t hat i s a fel onyand that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce agai ns tt he per s on orpr opert yof anotherm aybe us ed i n the cour s e of c om m i t t i ng t he offens e”) . Sect i on 16( b) “cove r s offe ns es thatnatur al l yi nvol ve a pe r s on a c tin g in d isre g a rd o f

th e risk th a t p h y sic a l fo rc e m ig h t b e u se d a g a in st a n o th e r in comm i t t i ng an offens e. ” L e o c a l v. A sh c ro ft , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 , 1 0 (2 0 0 4 ). I n t he cr i m i nal - s ent enci ng cont ext , thi s cour thas hel d that“a Col or ado t h i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l ti s c a t e g o r i c a l l ya c r i me o f v i o l e n c e u n d e rU. S . S . G. § 4B 1. 2( a) . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kr ej car ek , ___ F . 3 d . ___ , N o . 0 4 - 1 5 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 WL 1892573, *3 ( 10t h C i r . J ul y11, 2006) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. P axton , 422 F. 3d 1 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). B u t w e h a v e n o t h e ld th a t th ird d e g re e a ss a u lt 4 cat egor i cal l yi s a cr i m e of vi ol ence under§ 16( b) . T her e i s a “s i gni fi cant di ffe r ence ” betw een § 4B1. 2’ s r equi r ementof a “ r i s k of phy s i cal i nj ury , ” and § 16( b) ’ s r equi r ementof a “ r i s k of us e of for ce. ” United S tates v. Moo re , 420 F. 3d 1218, 1224 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . “W i thouta di s t i nct i on betw een c r i m es t hat p o ten tiallyin v o lv e v io len t co n d u c t an d c rim e s th a t m e re lyin v o lv e th e p o ss ib ili ty- 7-

of r es ul t i ng harm , t he § 16( b) defi ni t i on w oul d be fa rt oo i ncl us i ve. . . . ” L u c io -L u c io , 3 4 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 0 6 ; s ee als o i d. at1207 ( not i ng and pr es ervi ng di s t i nct i on betw een § 16( b) and § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) , w hi ch i s “obvi ous l ybr oaderthan § 1 6 (b )” ; lim itin g h o ld in g to c a s e s n o t in v o lv in g a c tu a l inju ry to o th e rs ). A ccor di ngl y , t he ac tual conductthati s cr i m i nal i zed mustbe cons i der ed w hen a p p lyin g § 1 6 (b ). L ooki ng bey ond t he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on, the B I A r eas oned, and w e agr ee, t hat“j ur yi ns t ruct i ons 8 t hr ough 12 r efl ectthat[M r . R as hi d] offe r ed a s el f- defe ns e theoryatt r i al , and tw o of thos e i ns truct i ons di s cus s the us e of phy s i cal for ce. ” In re R a sh id , N o. A 46 188 443, 2005 W L 3802089 ( B I A D ec. 1, 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) . I n part i cul ar , I ns truct i on N o. 9 s t at ed: I ti s an affi r m at i ve defens e t o the cr i m e of a s s aul ti n the thi r d degr ee t hatt he defendantus ed phy s i cal for ce upon a notherper s on: 1. i n or dert o defe nd hi m s el f fr om w hathe r eas onabl ybel i eved t o be t he us e ori m m i nentus e of unl aw ful phy s i cal for ce bythe vi ct i m , and 2. he us ed a de gr ee of for ce w hi ch he r eas onabl ybel i eved t o be nece s s aryfort hatpurpos e. H ow ever , t he defendantw as notj us t i fi ed i n us i ng phy s i cal for ce i f: 1. w i t h i nt entt o caus e bodi l yi nj uryt o anotherper s on, he p rov o k e[ d ] th e u se o f u n law fu l ph y sical fo rce b ythat o ther p erso n , o r 2. he [w as ] t he i ni t i al aggr es s or , exce ptthathi s us e of phy s i cal for ce upon anotherper s on underthe ci r cumst ance s [w as ] j us t i fi abl e i f he [w i t hdr ew ] fr om t he enc ount erand effec t i vel ycomm uni cat e[d] t o the otherperson h i s i ntentt o d o so, bu tthe latt er nevertheles s cont i nue[d] ort hr eat en[e d] the us e of unl aw ful phy s i cal for ce, or- 8-

3. t he phy s i cal for ce i nvol ved [w as ] the pr oductof a c om batby a g re e m e n t n o t s p e c ific a lly a u th o ri z e d b yla w . R . at148. B y r e tu r n i n g a g u i l t y v e r d i c tt o th e c h a r g e o f th i r d d e g r e e a s s a u l t , th e j u r y, w hi ch w e pr es um e fol l ow ed the j ur yi ns truct i ons , nece s s ar i l yr ej ect ed M r. R a sh id ’s a ffirm a tiv e d e fe n se th a t h e u se d p h y sic a l fo rc e a g a in st th e v ictim to defe nd hi m s el f. I n doi ng s o, t he j ur ynece s s ar i l yhad t o fi nd thatR as hi d “w as not j us t i fi ed i n us i ng phy s i cal for ce” forone of the thr ee r eas ons out l i ned i n the i ns t ruct i on quot ed above . W e conc l ude thatanyof thes e thr ee r eas ons w oul d be s uffi ci entt o s at i s fyt he r equi r ement s of § 16( b) , i . e. , al l thr ee i ndi cat e thatthe cr i m e/ s i tuat i on i nvol ved a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatR as hi d w oul d us e, ordi d i n fac t u s e , p h y s i c a l fo r c e a g a i n s tt h e v i c t i m. C oncl us i on W e c o n clud e tha t M r. R ash id’s p ri o r co n v ict ion u n d er the C o lorad o thir d d e g re e a s s a u lt s ta tu te w a s a c ri m e o f v io le n c e , a s d e fin e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 . C o n se q u e n tly , h is re m o v a l is w a rra n ted p u rsu a n t to 8 U .S .C . § § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii) a n d 1 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( F ). T h e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w is D E N IE D . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT P E R C UR I AM