## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2346 N OURREDI NE K HOD JA, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

Peti tionfor Revi ewof Or de r s of the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 038-672- 573
A RGUED O CT OB ER 27, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 12, 2011

Befo re F LA UM, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . P e t it io n e r N o u r r e d in e K h o dja becam e a l aw ful perm an ent r esi dent ofthe U ni ted S ta te s o n Feb r ua r y 1 1, 1 98 4. In 1 99 0, Kho dj a was c o nvi cted o fag gr avat ed batt er y a nd ar m ed vi ol ence an d se n te n c ed to fo u r y ea rs ’ im p ris on m en t. A fte r h is s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n g, K h o dj a mo v e d f o ra j u d i c i a lr e c o mm en dat i o n a g ainst d epo r ta ti o n ( “J RAD ”)
. An a ss i st an t att or ney forthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N atur al i zati on S er vi ce2 N o. 11

- 2346 ( “I N S”) st ate d that the m oti on s houl d be deni ed beca use K hod j a co ul d s ee ka § 2 12 ( c) wai ve ri n a s ubs eque nt i m m i gr ati on p ro ceedi ng. On thi s ba si s, the tr i alj ud ge d en ied th e m ot ion . C on gr es s re p e a l e d § 21 2(c ) in 1 99 6. In 20 03 , f o l l o wi nga va ca ti o n to the Dom i ni ca n Re publ i c, the I N S charg ed K hodj a a s be i ng inadm i ssibl e forhaving be en c o n v ic t e d ofa c r im e in v o lv in gm o r a l tu r p it u d e . K h o dja sought a w ai ver und er §§ 212( c) and (h)

. The i m m i gr ati on j ud ge denie d both w ai ver s, and the Board o fI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s a ffi rm ed. Because w e fi nd thatth e re pealo f § 2 12 ( c ) d o e s n o ta p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o Kh o dj a ’ s c a s e , t he pe t i t i o n wi l lb e g r a nt e d.

I. B ACK GR OUN D N ourr edi ne Kh odj a i s a si xty- one- yea r- ol d Tu ni si an nati ve and du alci ti zen o f T unis i a a nd Canada. In 196 9, Khodj a m ethi s wi fe, a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen, w hi l e sh e w as a sum m er exchange student i n Cana d a. T hey ma r r i e d i n1 97 7 a n d h a v e t wo c h i l d r e n, a g e s th i r ty - t wo an d twe nty - f o ur . Khodj a be ca m e a l awful p er m an en t re si dent ofthe U ni ted S tat es on F ebr uary11 , 19 84. On O cto ber14, 19 88, Kh odj a was char ged in I l l i noi s s tat e co ur t wi tha g g r avated ba tt ery, a r m ed vi o l en ce , a nd a t t e mp t e d mu r d e ra ft e rh e r e p e a t e d l y s t ab b e d J a me s W. B evan in th e bac k an d side. Du ring the b en ch tri al, exp ert testim ony est abl i shed that K hodj a s uffer ed fro m m aj or d e p r e s s i o nw i th ps y c h o t i c fe a tu r e s a tth e t i me h e c o mm i tte d the cr im e. O n M ar ch 14, 19 90, the tr i alj ud ge f ound K hodj a “ gui l ty but m ental l y i l l ” o n the agg ra vate d ba tt ery a nd a r m ed vi o l en ce c o unt s. Kho d j a was f o undN o. 11

- 2346 3

The t ri al j ud ge did no t s ente nce Kho dja on the aggravated 1 bat t er y c ountbe c ause the ag gr ava t ed ba t t er y c onvi c t i on ar os e fro m the s am e offen s e as hi s ar m ed vi ol en c e c onvi c t i on. n o tgu ilt y ofa t t e m p t e d m u r d e r . O n M a y 1 8 , 1 9 9 0 , K h o dja w as se n te n c ed to fo u r ye ar s’ im p ris on m en t fo r h is ar m ed vi o l en ce c o nv i ctio n. He di d no t r ec ei ve a s en te nc e o n the a g g r av at ed ba tt ery c o nv i ct i o n. 1 Fol l owing hi s s entencing hea ring, Kh odj a m ove d fo r a j ud i c i alr e c o mm e nd a t i o n a g a i ns tde po r t a t i o n, o rJ RAD. A t the ti m e o fKh odj a’ s hea ring, a s en tencing j ud ge cou ld issue a J R A D , w hich prov ided that the d efe nd an t’s convi cti on coul d not be used as a basi s fordeport ati on b y im m igr at ion au t h o r i tie s. See8 U
. S. C. § 1 251(b) ( 2) (re p ea led 19 90 ). “A lth ou gh ca lled a ‘re c o m m en d at ion,’ th e c om m and ofa J RA D w as m andator y. ” So lis-C ha vez v . H o lder, N os. 10- 1354 & 11- 1243 , 2011 W L 5 0419 16, at *2 (7th C ir. Oc t. 25, 2011). A t K h odj a’s hearing, Seth Fitter, an as si sta nt at torney forthe f or m erI N S, urg ed the cour t t o deny the J RA D m oti on because K hodj a coul d see k a waive r bef or e a n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge. H e s tat ed as f ol l ows: Basi cal l y, J ud ge, thi s i s a h igh ly unu sualty pe of re l i eff orthe Defe nd ant her e. There i s an I m m i gr ati on J ud ge w ho handl es i m m i gr ati on ca ses . H e i s a part fro m the I m m i gr ati on S er vi ce. H e w ou ld m ake a ruling on a c a s e like this to dete rm i ne wh etherthe Defe nd ant i s depor tabl e. A n d then afterthat, i ft h at’s cor re ct, then ther e i s a se parat e po r ti o n in whi chthe De fen dan t woul d t es ti fy, b r i ng4 N o. 11

- 2346

The tri al j ud ge at fir st denied the J R A D m oti on, s tat ing “I am 2 goi ng t o de ny the m ot i on. I fee l thatthis is a m at t erf or the fed er a l g o v er n m en t t o b e c o n ce rn ed w ith . M o tio n d en ie d .” ( R. at53 5. ) Khodj a’ s c ouns elthen qu er i ed whe the r the j udge was den yi ng the m ot i on on i t s f ac e or i n d eferenc e t o the fed era l cou rts, to w hich the trial jud g e resp on d ed tha t it w ou ld b e m or e ap p ro p riately hea rd in the p ro p er trib u na l. Khodj a’ s c ouns elm ove d t o wi thdra w th e m ot i on, wh i c h the jud g e g ran ted , exp lain ing , “I d id n’t m ak e a ru ling

. I said m ot i on deni ed, buti f[ c ouns el ] wants t o wi thdra w th e m ot i on, s he m a y do so. Thi s i s a m a t t e r whi c h ha s t o be h a n d le d b y th e i m m ig ra tio n au th o ri tie s.” (R . at53 6 .) i n hi s wife, and the J ud ge has

— coul d gran t a waive r o fthi s co nv i ct i o n. B ut i f t h e Cou rt grants this m otion, it’ s as ifyou are u su rp in g t h e role of th e Im m igr at ion Ju d ge in m aking tha t ruling. A nd Idon’ t be l i eve i n this ty p e of c ase the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge shoul d be t aken o u t of the pi cture , so to speak. ( R. at53 4- 35. ) T he I l l i noi s s tat e t ri alj ud ge then deni ed the J RA D m oti on, st ating “i t’ s m or e a pp ro pri ate to be hear d i n the propertr ibunal ” a n d “[ t] hi s i s a m att er w h ich h as to b e h an d led by th e im m igr at ion au th or iti es. ” ( R. at53 6. ) Kh odj a’ s co unselm ove d to w i th d ra w the J RAD mot i o n, wh i c h the t r i a lj ud g e g r a nt e d. 2 K h od j a a p p ea led h i s c on vic tio nto th e Illino is A p p ell ate Court
. O n S ep tem ber13 , 19 91, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtde ni e d Kh o dj a ’ s a pp e a l

. Kh o dj a s e r v e d e i g ht e enN o. 11

- 2346 5

m onths ofhi s four- yea r se n te n ce. H e was r el eas ed fro m custo dy i n J ulyo f19 93 and dischar ged fro m pa ro le o n Se ptem ber8, 19 94. On D ecem ber22 , 2 00 2, K hodj a a nd hi s wife r etur ned to the U n ite d Sta tes fro m a vacat i on t o the Dom i ni can Re publ i c. Kho dj a p r es en te d hi m se l ft o o ffi ci al s atthe air p or t a n d ap p lied for a d m iss ion . Ra th er th an ad m it K hodj a, i m m i gr ati on o ffici al s defer re d his i nspecti on and o rder ed hi m to appear bef or e the Ch i cago im m igr atio noffic e. O n A p ril 24 , 200 3, im m igr at ion offic ials se r ve d Kho dj a wi tha Not i ce t o Appea r . The g o ve r nm en t al l ege d that Khodj a was s u b j ect to re m ova lunder 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182(a)(2) (A )( i) (I ) as an ali en co n v ict ed of a cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e. On M ay 29, 20 03, Kh odj a a pp ear ed befor e a n im m i gr ati on j ud ge. K h od j a a cknowle dged that he was not a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti ze n a nd ha d pr es en te d hi m se l ff o ri nspecti on a s a r etur ni ng l aw ful re si dent on Dece m ber22 , 20 02. H e deni ed f actualal l ega ti ons re l ating to his pri orco nvi cti ons f orar m ed v iol ence and aggr avat ed ba tt ery . On F eb r ua r y 2 6, 2 00 4, Kho dj a i ndi ca te d t o the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge that he would se ek a § 21 2( c) waive r and a § 212( h) w aiver. Pri orto i ts re peal, § 212( c) gr anted d isc re tio nto th e A tt or n ey G en er a l to ad m it c er ta in alie n s d es p ite th eir ina d m iss ible st a tu s. See8 U. S
. C. § 1 18 2( c ) ( r e p ea led 19 96 ). Sec tio n21 2(h ), w h ich is st ill i n effect, gr ants the Attorney Gener albr oad di scr eti on to a dm i t ana l i enunde rv ar i o us c i r cum st an ce s, i nc l udi ng if d e n i a l of ad m iss ion w ou ld res u lt in ex tr em e h ar d sh ip to th e a lien ’ s fa m ily. See8 U
. S. C. § 1 182( h). Thi s r el i ef6 N o. 11

- 2346 i s unavai l abl e t o any a l ien c on vi cted o fan a ggr avat ed fel ony f ol l owing hi s or her previ ous adm i tta nce into th e U n ite d Sta te s. Id. K hodja’s fi nalr em ova lhear i ng was hel d on J une 15, 2 005. Th e im m igrati on j ud ge d eterm ined that K ho d ja w as re m ova bl e, d eni e d Kh o dj a ’ s a pp l i c a t i o ns f or w a iv e r s u n d e r§ § 2 1 2 (c ) a n d (h ), a n d o r d e r e d K h o dja d e p o r t e d t o C a n a d a . K h o dj a t i me l y a p p e a l e d th e i mm i gr ati on j ud ge’ s deci si on t o the Boa rd o fI m m i gr ati on A pp eal s. The Board hel d that K hodj a w as i nel i gibl e fo r a § 2 1 2 ( c ) w a i v e rb u ta g r e e d w i thK h o dj a th a t th e i mm i g r at i o n j ud ge er r ed i n i ts a na l y si s o fhi s § 21 2( h) w ai ver appl i cati on. The Boar d rem anded to the i m m i gr ati o n j ud g e f o ra p r o pe rde t e r mi na t i o n o fwh ether K hodj a had be en co n victed ofan “ agg ra vate d fe l ony” f or p urp oses of § 212(h). On rem and, the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge f ound that K hodj a had be en co nvi cted o fan aggr avat ed fel ony as defi ne d i n 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( F )
. Acco r di ng l y, the i m m i gr ati on j ud ge aga i n denie d Kh odj a’ s a pp l i cati on f ora § 2 12( h) w aiv er . Khodj a a pp eal ed thi s deci si on t o th e B oa rd , w h ich affirm ed th e im m ig r a t i on j u d ge ’s d ec isi on, al though on differ ent gr ounds. K hodj a fi l ed h is peti ti on forr evi ew with thi s co urt on J une 14, 20 11.

II. A NA LYSIS We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o nt o r e v i e w c o n s t i tu t i o n a lc l a i ms a n d qu e s t i o n s o fl a w r a i s e d i na p e t i t i o nf o rr ev i e w. Fred erickv. Ho lder, 644 F.3d 35 7, 36 2 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ), pe t i t i onN o. 11

- 2346 7 fo r cert. filed, 80 U
. S. L.W
. 30 78 ( U
. S. A ug. 1, 20 11) (No. 11

- 135) ; 8 U
. S. C. §§ 1252 ( a) ( 2) ( C), ( D). Kh odj a chal len ges th e B o ar d’ s dec i si o n b as ed o n l eg ale r r o ra nd due pr oc es s gro und s. W e r evi ew thes e cl ai m s deno vo . Fre der ick, 64 4 F
. 3d at 362.

A
. Secti o n 2 12 (c) Wa iver Kho dj a wa s c ha r g e d a s i na dmi s s ib l e u nd e r8 U. S
. C. § 1182 ( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , w hi ch provi des that “any al i en c o nv i c t e d o f

. . . a c r i me i nv o l v i ng mor a l tur pi tud e ( othe r than a pu re l y pol i tica l o ffense) o r an at tem pt or c on sp ira c y t o c om m it s u c ha c rim e . . . i s in ad m iss ible .” K hod j a d oes n o t c h all en ge th at he w as con victed of a cri m e invol vi ng m or alturpitud e. Instea d, K hodj a a sse rt s that he i s e n tit l ed to a hear i ng o n hi s a pp l i cati on for a § 21 2( c) waive r. S ecti on 2 12( c) o f the I m m i gr ati on and N ati onal i ty A ct o f19 52 provi ded that [ a] l i ens l aw fully a dm i tte d fo r p er m anent r esi dence who tem po r ar i l y pr o ce ede d abr o ad vo l unt ar i l y a nd not un d er an o rdero fdeport ati on, and w ho a re r eturni ng to a l aw ful unrel i nquished dom i ci l e o f se ve n c o ns ec ut i ve y ea r s, may be a dm itted i n the d isc re tio nof th e A tt or n ey G en er al . .

. . 8 U.S .C . § 1 18 2(c) ( re peal ed 199 6) ; IN S v
. St
. Cyr, 533 U
. S. 2 8 9 , 2 9 5 ( 2 0 0 1 )
. T hi s s e c t i o n wa s a men de d in 1 9 9 0 to precl ud e r el i eff oranyo ne co nvi cted o fan a ggr avat ed fel o ny who s er ve d a t er m o fa t l ea stfi ve y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t. St
. Cyr, 53 3 U.S
. at29 7. In 1996, Congr ess passe d th e Ant i t e r r o r i s m a nd Effe c t i v e De a th Pe na l ty Acto f 1996 (“A E D P A ”), Pub. L. N o. 10 4- 132, § 440( d), 11 0 S tat
.8 N o. 11

- 2346 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 7 7
. T he AEDP A a men de d § 2 1 2 ( c ) t o p r e c l ud e re l i eff orco nvi cti ons base d on a bro ad seto fo ffen ses, in c lu d in g a ll agg ra va te d felon ies
. St
. Cyr, 53 3 U.S
. at29 7; Fre der ick, 6 44 F
. 3d at3 61 n. 2. La te rth at sa m e y ea r, Co ngr es s p as se d t h e Illeg al Im m igr at ion R efo rm an d Im m igr ant Res ponsibi l i ty A ct o f19 96 ( “I I RI RA ”) , Pub. L. N o. 104-208 , 110 Stat. 3009. T his statu te rep ealed § 212(c), re pla ci ng i t w i th “a new sect i on that gi ves th e A ttorne y Generalthe author ity t o cancelr em ova lf ora narr ow cl ass o fi nad m iss ibl e o r deportabl e a l i ens. ” St
. Cyr, 53 3 U
. S. at29 7 ( ci t i ng 8 U.S
. C. § 1 229b )
. Thi s secti on a l so precl ud es re l i ef f or any al i en convi cted of an ag gr avat ed felo n y. Id. Pri orto i ts re peal, al i ens who appli ed f or eq u ita b le re lief u n d er § 21 2(c ) h ad an ap p ro x i m at ely fifty p er c en t c h an c e o f su c c es s. C a nto v . H o lder, 59 3 F.3 d 63 8, 64 2 (7 th C ir.), cert. denied , 131 S. Ct
. 85 (2010). I n 200 1, the Suprem e C ou rtaddress ed the re tr oac ti ve appl i ca ti o n o fthe I I RI RA’s r epe alo f§ 2 12 ( c) i n INS v
. St. Cyr, 53 3 U.S
. 28 9 ( 2001 )
. “The St
. CyrCourtco ncl ud ed th a tC o n g r e s s d i d no t p r o v i d e a s u ffi c i e n t l y c l e a rc o mm and w i th r espectto t h e te m pora lr each o fthe re peal off or m er§ 212( c) byI I RI RA se cti on 3 04(b) , such that th e Cou r t co ul d not unam bi g uo us l y c o nc l ude tha t Con

gr ess i ntended it to appl y r etr oac ti vel y. ” C anto , 59 3 F
. 3d at 642. The S up rem e Cour t then hel d that r etr oac ti ve ap p lica tio nof th e IIR IR A ’s re p e a l o f§ 21 2(c ) “w ou ld ha ve a n i m per m i ss ibl e r et r o ac ti ve e ffec t o n a l iens who had pled guil ty pri orto t h e repealo fse cti on 2 12( c) because the re pealfund am ental l y c h an ged the ri ghts they had at th e tim e ofthei r convi cti ons. ” Id. The S u p r em e C ou rtn ot ed th e q u id p ro qu o in vo lve d inN o. 11

- 2346 9 ple a a gr eem ents and hel d that a l i ens who ent er ed i nto plea ag reem ents “ ‘ al m ostcer tainl y r el i ed upon [the] l i kel i hood o fr e c e i v i ng di s c r e t i o na r y r el i efunder sect i on 2 12( c) i n deci ding w hether t o forgo thei r ri ght t o a t ri al

. . . . ’ ” Id. ( q uot i ng St
. Cyr, 533 U
. S. at 325). St. Cyrf a i l e d t o a ddr e s s wh e the ra l i e ns wh o p l ed not gui l ty and w er e co n vic te d fo l l owing a t ri alar e a l so enti tl ed to r el ief u n d er § 212( c)
. A ci rcui t s pli t e xi sts as to w hethersuch rel i efi s a vai l abl e o utsi de the gui l typ lea co n te x t. See So lis-C ha vez , 20 11 W L 50419 16, at* 8. “The r ule i n thi s ci rcui t r em ai ns thatr el i ef un der § 21 2( c) i s no t av ai l ab l e to any al i en whos e r emov al pr o ce eding b eg an aft er rep e a l ex c ep t t o th os e w h o a ffirm at ive ly abandoned ri ghts orad m i tte d gui l t in re l i ance on § 21 2( c) re l i ef

. ” U nite d States v. D e Horta Garcia , 519 F. 3d 65 8, 661 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. Pre vi ousl y we have rec og ni zed that thos e who ple d gui l ty prior to the re pealo f§ 212( c) an d tho se who c o nc ede d de po r tabi l i tyb as ed o n the ex p ecta ti o n th at th ey co ul d se ek r el i ef unde r § 21 2( c) are enti tl ed to St
. Cyrrelie f. Id. “ I n b o th c a ses , w e requi r e d a showing of s p ec ific fa c ts d em on st ra tin g a c tu al re liance. ” Id. A l though Kho d j a di d not pl ead gui l ty and w as i nstea d c onvi cted at tr i al, w e fi nd that h e h as d em ons trated actu al r eli an ce o n th e availabil ity ofa § 2 12( c ) w ai versuch that he affi rm ati vel y abandoned hi s r i g htt o pur su e a JRA D. In So lis-C ha vez , we noted th at althou gh a J R A D i s a p ure ly d iscretionary form of r elie f, i t c an se rv e a s “ a c om p let e d efe n se to rem ov al.” 20 11 W L 5041 91 6, a t * 6. Thu s, i n S o l i s- Cha ve z’ s ca se , he h ad a d u e p ro c es s in te re stin p ro te c tin g “ a p r e v i ou sly10 N o. 11

- 2346

en te re d JR A D ag ain stth e g o v e r n m en t’s cla im th atit is unti m el y a nd ther ef or e inval i d.” Id. at* 6 n. 1. Inth is c a s e, IN S a ss ist an t a tt or n ey Fitt er sp ec ifica lly r efer en ce d the av ai l ab i l i ty o f a wai ve r atKho dj a’ s he ar i ng on hi s JRA D m oti on. H e s tat ed: “[ T]her e i s a se parat e p or tio nin w h ich th e D e f e n d an t w ou ld te st ify, br in g in hi s wife, and th e [Im m i gr ati on] J ud ge . . . co uld g ra nt a w aiv er of th is c on vic tio n .” (R . at 5 34 -35 .) I m m ed i a t e ly f ol l owing Fi tt er ’s statem ent, the tr i alj ud ge prel i m i nari l y denie d K hodj a’ s J RA D m oti on. Kh odj a then w i thdrew his re quest fora J RA D. T h e facts i nd i cate that K hodj a cho se to for go a pos sibl e be nefi t in re l i ance o n Fi tte r’ s sta tem ent that he w oul d b e el i gibl e f or § 212( c) r e l i e f

. See E squiv el v. M uk a sey, 54 3 F
. 3d 919, 92 2 ( 7th Ci r . 20 08 ) ( r equi r i ng a sh o wi ng o f spe ci fi c f acts de m o nstr ating ac tualr el i ance)
. I fthe sta te t rialco urt had gr an te d K h od j a’s m ot ion for a JR A D , K h od j a w ou ld have a co m ple te defe nse t o deporta ti on. But beca use o f F i tt er’s s ta te m en t, Kho dj a wi th dr ew hi s m o ti o n a nd ch o se no t to a ppea lthe de ni alo fh is J RAD mot i o n, eve n th ou gh he appeal ed hi s co nvi cti on. W e fi nd that K hodj a has dem onst ra ted actual r el i ance in for going a p os sib le b enefi t s uch that the r epealo f§ 212( c) does n o ta p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y i nth i s c a s e . Ac c o r d i n g l y, we w ill rem and to the a gencyf orfurtherpro ceedi ngs t o addr es s Khodj a’ s § 21 2( c) wai ve ra ppl i ca ti o n.

B
. Secti o n 2 12 (h) Wa iver K h od j a also ap p lied for a § 21 2(h ) w aiv er d u r i n g h is deporta ti on pro ceedi ngs. U nd er§ 212( h), the A tto rneyN o. 11

- 2346 11 Generalhas bro ad dis cre ti on to wai ve the inadm i ssib i l i t y o f an alien in a va rie ty of cir c u m st an c es . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182(h). N o w aiver m ay be p rovide d , how ever, if th e a lien h as be en co n vic te d of an “a gg ra va te d felon y.” Id. “A ggr avat ed fel ony” i ncl ud es a “ cri m e o fvi ol ence, ” as defin ed in 18 U.S
. C. § 1 6, f orwh i ch the ter m o fi m pri sonm en t is at least one yea r. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1101(a)(43)( F). A “cr i m e of vi ol ence” has tw o defini ti ons. T h e fir st uses a ca teg or i calapproa ch and appli es to “an o ffense that has a s a n el em ent the use, at tem pted use, o r thre atened use ofphysi cal for c e a gainst the per son orpro perty of a n o th er .” 18 U .S.C . § 16 (a). O u r re vie w u n d er § 16 (a) is st ric tly lim ite d to th e e lem en ts of th e cr im e. La G uerre v. M uk a sey, 52 6 F
. 3d 1037, 10 39 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 8) ( per curi am )
. The se cond defini ti on incl ud es “any othe r offense that i s a fe lon y a nd that, byi ts nature , i nvol ves a subs t a nt i a lr i s ktha tp hy s i c a lf o r c e a g a i ns tthe p e r s on orpro pertyo fano therm ay be use d in t h e co urse o f com m itti ng the offe n s e .” 18 U
. S. C
. § 16(b). Th e B oard deter m i ned that K hodj a’ s a rm ed vi ol ence offense, based on the pre dica te fel ony ofag gr avat ed batt er y, sat i sfi es th i s se co nd de fi ni ti o n. The Board a pp l i ed a m odi fi ed cate gor i calapproa ch i n deter m i ni ng tha t the ar m ed vi ol ence convi cti on m et th e d e fi nition of “cri m e of viol en ce” u nd er § 16(b), l o o k i ngb ey o nd the e l ement s o fthe offen se to the charg i ng docum ents. Rel yi ng upon thi s co u rt ’ s r easo ni ngi n U nite d States v. Fife, 624 F. 3d 441 (7 t h C ir. 20 10 ), cert. d e nied , 131 S. C t. 15 36 (20 11 ), th e B oa rd h eld th at K hod j a’s pred icate fel o n y o f aggrav ated battery12 N o. 11

- 2346 i nv o l ve d a g r ea te rr i sko fphy si ca lf o r ce tha n the predi cate fel ony of posse ssi on w i th i ntent to d eli ver co ca i ne tha t wa s a t iss ue i n Fife

. M oreover, the B oard note d that the ind i ctm ent r efer enced Kh od j a’ s a cts of knowingly c ausi ng bo dil y har m to the vi cti m by stabbi ng hi m i n the back a n d s i de. Thi s was eno ugh f or the Boa rd to co ncl u d e th at K hodj a had be en co nvi cted of a “crim e of viol en ce” u nd er § 16(b). K h od j a a rg u es th atth e B oa rd err ed in u sin g a m od ifi ed ca te g o r i ca la ppr o ac h o r, i n the a l te r na ti ve, tha t th e B oa rd im p ro p er ly c on sid er ed K h od j a’s ac tu al c on d u c t in deter m i ni ng wh etherhi s o ffense sat i sfi ed the m odi fi ed ca te g o r i ca l appr o ac h. Kho dj a’ s fi r sta r g um en t i s wi th o ut m er i t. The st atuto ryl anguage for a rm ed vi ol ence sta tes : “A per son com m i ts ar m ed vi ol ence w hen , whil e a rm ed wi tha da ng er o us wea po n, he c o m m i ts a ny fel o ny defi ne d by I l l i no i s l aw . . . . ” 72 0 I LCS 5/33 A-2 (a). The term “an y fel ony ” enc om p asses a broad rang e o f u nd erl yi ng acts wh i ch m ay orm ay not const i tute cri m es of vi ol e nc e . Th e mod i f i e d c a t e g o r i c a l approa ch appli es w hen “analysi s o fthe el em ents re veal s that a sta tute m ay be v i ol ate d i n sev er always, such as a sta tute w hi ch cr eat es m or e than one cri m e o r one that defines o ne cr i m e with m ult i ple enu m er ate d m odes of com m i ssi on. ” Fife, 624 F.3d at44 5; cf. G a isk o v v . Ho lder, 56 7 F.3d 832 , 836 n. 2 ( 7 t h C ir. 2009) (based on th e statu tory langu age, al l p rohibited cond uc t w as reason ably un d ersto od as “se xual abuse ofa m i nor ”; ther ef or e, i t was unnecessary t o apply the m odi fi ed cate gor i calapproa ch i n deter m i ni ng wh etherth e d efendant’s o ffense m et th e defi ni ti o n o f“ se xua labus e” )
. In F i fe, we hel d thatN o. 11

- 2346 13 I l l i noi s’ s a rm ed vi ol ence sta tute “cr eat es m u lti ple m odes of c om m i ssi on, defi ned by the fel ony com m i tte d w h ile ar m ed wi tha da ng er o us wea po n. ” 62 4 F
. 3d at4 46
. The sa m e ar m ed vi o l en ce s ta tu te i s a t issue i n thi s ca se a nd the Boa rd was cor re ct in apply i ng a m odi fi ed cat egori cal appr o ac h. U nd erthe m odi fied cat ego ri calapproa ch, “we l oo k a t th e c on vic tio n ’s jud icia l rec or d to d e t er m in e w h et h er it q u a l i fi e s a s a c r i me o fv i o l e n c e , b u tw e w i l ls t i l ln o te x a mi ne the part i cul arf acts o fthe convi cti on. ” U ni t e d S t a tes v. Cur ti s , 6 45 F
. 3d 93 7, 9 40 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. “ [ T] he po i nt o fthe e xpa nde d i nqu iry is no t to c o ns i derwhatthe d efend an t in f act d id bu t to de term in e w hich category ofcr i m e the defendant com m i tte d.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i s m uke, 593 F.3d 58 2, 58 9 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 131 S. Ct. 30 18 (2 01 1). I n thi s ca se, the Board co nsi dered the underl yi ng fel ony ofag gr avat ed batt er y as w el las K hodj a’ s a ctualco nd uct in stabbi ng the vi cti m . Because the mo di fi e d c a t e g o r i c a la pp r o a c h pr o hib i t s c o ns i der ati on o fa defe nd ant’ s actualco nd uct, the Board e rr ed inco n sid er in g w h atK h od j a d i d

. B u t th is e rro r is ha rm less b ecau se a p rop er exa m ination of K hod j a’s co nv i ct i o n un d er the modi fi ed ca te g o r i ca la ppr o ac h, consi deri ng o nl y the underl ying fe lony ofag gr avat ed batt er y, st i l ll eads t o the c oncl usi on that Kho d j a was c on vic te d of a “ c rim e o f vio len c e.” I n Il linois, “[a] p e r s on com m its aggravate d battery when, i n c o m m i tt i nga b attery
. . . he o rs he k no wi ng l y . . . [ c] au se s g r ea t bo di l y ha r m o rpe r m an en t d isabil ity or d isfigurem en t.” 7 20 ILC S 5/12-3. 05(a)(1)
. T he nat ure of th is cri m e is su ch that a victi m suffers14 N o. 11

- 2346 p hy sical harm at the h a n d s of a w il ling perp etrator. To e st ab l i shtha t a defen dan t co m m i tt ed th e und erlying fel ony ofag gr ava te d battery, a pros ecuto r w oul d have t o d e mo n s t r a t e th a tth e d e fe n d a n tc a u s e d b o d i l y h a r m. W e hav e inter prete d si m i l arst atute s a s hav i ng as an ele m en t th e u se of p h ys i c a l fo rc e a ga in stan ot h er . See La G uerre, 526 F.3d a t 1 03 9 (d isc u ss in g Illino is’s d om es tic batt ery statu te). W e ho l d that aper son w ho co m m i ts an ag gr avat ed batt er y in I l l i noi s p re sents “a subst anti alr i sk that physi calf or ce a gainst the per son or pro pertyo fano ther m ay be use d i n the cour se ofco m m i tting the o ffense. ” 1 8 U
. S. C. § 1 6(b)

. The addit i on o f a dangero us w eapon i ncr e a s e s thi s r i s k

. Und e rthe mo di fi e d c a t e g o r i c a la pproa ch, ther ef or e, Kh odj a was co nvi cted o fa “cr i m e o f vi ol ence” u n der § 16 ( b)

. In additi on, Kh odj a was i m pri soned f orm or e than one year . A ccor dingly, hi s co nvi cti o n fi ts th e defi ni ti o n o fa n “ ag g r av at ed fel o ny ” an d § 2 12( h) re l i efi s unavai l abl e.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons , w e G RANTthe pe ti ti o n a nd R EMA ND thi s c a s e f o ra ful lh e a r i ngo n Kho dj a ’ s § 2 1 2( c) wai ve ra ppl i ca ti o n.

12- 12- 11