NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
FER NANDO GONZALEZ- ) No. 15-71755 R AM IREZ, ) ) Age n c y

No. A090-191-186 Pe titione r, ) ) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, ) Attorne y Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 4, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s , a n d M AR SHALL, ** Distric t Judge
. Fe rnando Gonz a le z -R am ire z , a native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o a nd la wful pe rm ane nt re side nt of the Unite d State s pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of 

# FIL ED
JUN 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

ble C onsue l o B . M arsha l l, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Im

m i gration Appe a l s ’ (B IA) de te rm i nation tha t he wa s ine ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l 1 be c a

use he wa s c onvic te d of a c rim e of viole n c e . 2 W e grant the pe tition a nd re m and. 3 Gonz a le z wa s c onvic te d

of the c rim e of disc ha

rging a fire arm at a n
unoc c upie d m otor ve h i c le
. Se e C a l . Pe na l C ode § 247(b). W e have pre viously he ld tha t disc ha rging a fire a rm at a n oc c upie d m otor ve hic le 4 is not a c ate goric a l
c rim e of viole nc e unde r § 16 be c a use a pe rson’ s m e re ly

re c kle ss a c tions 5 are suffic i e nt to support a

c onvic tion for tha

t c rim e . C

ov arrubias Te

p o ste , 632 F.3d a

t 1052–55; 6 s e e also Le oc al v . Ashc roft , 543 U.S. 1, 11, 125 S. C t. 377, 383, 160 L.

1 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(a).
2 Se e id. § 1101(a )(43)(F); se e also 18 U.S.C . § 16 (he re a fte r “ § 16” ).
3 W e note tha

t we do not owethe B IA de fe re nc e re ga rding the c onstruc tion and a pplic ation of § 16 to sta

te sta tute s . Se e C

ov arrubias Te

poste v . Holde r , 632 F.3d 1049, 1052 (9th C ir. 2011).

4 C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 246.
5 Se e Pe oplev . Ov e rman , 126 C a l. App. 4th 1344, 1356–57, 24 C a l. R ptr. 3d 798, 805–06 (2005); Pe o

plev . C ruz , 38 C a l. App. 4th 427, 432–33, 45 C a l. R ptr. 2d 148, 151 (1995); Pe oplev . C hav ira , 3 C a l. App. 3d 988, 993, 83 C a l . R ptr. 851, 854–55 (1970).

6 W e re c ogniz e tha

t C ov a rrubias Te

poste re lie d upon § 16(b) when it de c ide d that se c tion 246 wa s not a

c rim e of viole nc e , a

nd tha t the Supre m e C ourt ha s now indic ate d tha

t § 16(b) is void for va

gue ne ss. Se e S

e s sions v . Dimay a , __ U.S. __, __, 138 S. C t . 1204, 1223, __ L. Ed. 2d __ (2018). Howe ve r, our holding wa s ba se d upon thefa c t tha

t re c kle s s use of forc e wa s suffic ie nt to support a c onvic tion (c ontinue d...) 2Ed. 2d 271 (2004); 7 The B IA e rre d whe n it re lie d upon a c ontra ry a uthority 8 whic h ha d be e n supe rse d e d. 9 B e c a use the c rim e of disc ha

rging a fire a rm at a n
unoc c upie d m otor ve h i c le is struc ture d a lm ost e x a c tly like the c rim e of disc ha

rging it a t a n oc c u pie d m otor ve h ic l e , the sa m e ana ly sis a

pplie s to e a c h of the m m

utatis
m uta ndis, a nd the re sult is a l so tha

t C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode se c tion 247(b) is not a
c rim e of viole nc e . Spe c ific a lly , just a s se c tion 246 is a ge ne ra l inte nt c rim e , 1 0 so too is se c tion

6 (...c ontinue d) unde r se c tion 246. C

ov arrubias Te

poste , 632 F.3d a

t 1053–54; se e also Unite d State s v . N arv ae z-Gome z , 489 F.3d 970, 976–77 (9th C ir. 2007). Theba s is of tha t holding would pre c l ude c ove ra ge unde r § 16(a ) a s we ll. Se e Fe rnande z-Ruiz v
. Gonzale s , 466 F.3d 1121, 1129–30, 1132 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba

n c ).
7 W e are a lso a

ware of Voisine

v . Unite d State

s , __ U.S. __, 136 S. C t. 2272, 195 L. Ed. 2d 736 (2016). Howe ve r, tha t Supre m e C ourt de c i sion doe s not a ffe c t our § 16(a ) c a se la

w. Se e id. at

__, 136 S. C t. at 2280 n.4. Thus, our § 16(a ) c a se s re m a in the la

w of this c irc uit. S

e e Rodrigue

z v . AT & T Mobility

Se rv s. LLC , 728 F.3d 975, 979 (9th C ir. 2013)

.

8 Unite d State

s v . C orte z-Arias , 403 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th C ir.), ame nde d by 415 F.3d 977 (9th C ir.), ame nde d by 425 F.3d 547 (9th C ir. 2005).
9 Se e N a r v ae z-Gome z , 489 F.3d a

t 976 n.3.
1 0 Se e O v e rman , 126 C a l. App. 4th a t 1357, 24 C a l . R

ptr. 3d a t 806. 3247(b) a

ge ne ra l inte nt c rim e . 1 1 Thus, both c rim e s re quire willful 1 2 a c t ion (the disc ha rge of a fire arm at a m otor ve hic le ). 1 3 The jury instruc tions tha

t C a lifornia
c ourts a re “ strongly

e nc oura ge d” 1 4 to use indic ate tha t the m e ns re a for both c rim e s inc l ude s willful shooting of a fire arm at a m otor ve hic le
. 1 5 And whilethe pe na ltie s diffe r, 1 6 those for viola

ting se c tion 246 c an be m ate ria lly gre ate r tha

n those for viola ting se c tion 247(b). In fine , c om m on se nse would le a d to the c onc lusion tha t it would bestra

nge inde e d if a

pe rson wa s e ligiblefor c anc e lla tion of re m ova l if he ha d disc ha

rge d a fire arm at a n oc c upie d ve h ic le , but wa s not e ligibleif he ha d disc ha rge d one at a

n unoc c u pie d ve hic le . The re is no ba s is for holding tha t the la w
a pplic a ble he re fa i ls to a c c ord with c om m on se nse .

1 1 Se e P e oplev . Rubalc a v a , 23 C a l. 4th 322, 328, 1 P.3d 52, 56, 96 C a l. R ptr. 2d 735, 739 (2000).

1 2 W e note that willful im

plie s tha t the pe rson “ knows” an d “ inte nds to do what he is doing.” Pe oplev . J e rry R. (In reJ

e rry R.) , 29 C a l. App. 4th 1432, 1438, 35 C a l. R ptr. 2d 155, 160 (1994).
1 3 Se c tion 246 a dds “ m a lic iously ” a s a re quisitefor c o nvic tion, but tha t is not re le va nt for our purpose s in this c a se . 1 4 Se e C a l. R . C t. 2.1050(e ); se e also Pe oplev . Simmons , 233 C a l. App. 4th 1458, 1477, 183 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 597, 613 (2015).
1 5 Se e C ALC R IM No. 965; C ALC R IM No. 966; se e also C ALJIC No. 9.03; C ALJIC No. 9.03.2.

1 6 The pe na lty

for viola tion of se c tion 246 is e xplic itly se t forth in the se c tion itse lf. The pe na lty

for viola ting se c tion 247(b) is set forth in these c tion a nd at C a lifornia Pe na l C ode se c tions 17(a), 1170(h). 4Thus, be c a use his c onvic tion for viola tion of se c tion 247(b) doe s not re nde r Gonz a le z ine ligible for c anc e lla tion of re m ova l , we gran t the pe tition a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. Pe tition GR

ANTED a

nd REM ANDED.

5Gonzale

z-Ramire z v . Se ssions , 15-71755 C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: I c onc ur in the c ourt’ s m e m o randum disposition, a

nd only write to e xpla in that , in m y vie w, thre e c o n side rations drive this re sult. First, C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 247(b), like § 246, is a ge ne ra l inte nt c rim e tha

t inc l ude s “ n o furthe r m e nta l sta te be y ond willing c om

m ission of the

a c t prosc ribe d by

la w,” Pe oplev . Rubalc av a , 23 C a l . 4th 322, 328 (2000), a sta nda rd tha t e nc om pa sse s re c kle ssne ss. Se c ond, a s the c ourt’ s m e m oran dum disposition note s, our c a s e la w re quire s tha

t to
c onstitute a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 16(a ), an offe nse m ust involve inte ntiona l (not m e re l y re c kle ss) c onduc t. S e e Fe rnande

z-Ruiz v . Gonzale

z , 466 F.3d 1121, 1130 (9th C ir. 2006) (e n ba nc ). Fina lly , the Supre m e C o urt’ s re c e nt de c ision in Voisine

v . Unite d State

s e xpre ssly

le ft ope n the que stion whe t he r § 16(a ) inc l ude s re c kle ss be havior. 136 S. C t. 2272, 2280 n.4 (2016). B e c a use C a l. Pe na l C ode § 247(b), thesta tute of c onvic tion in this c a se , prohibits a broa de r
array of c onduc t tha

n the fe de ra l sta

tute , § 247(b) doe s not c onstitute a c ate goric a l
c rim e of viole nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 16(a ). 

# FIL ED
JUN 20 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS