H on or ab le John Z
. L e e , o f the N or the rn D istrict of Ill ino is,  s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 12

- 2253 J OSE C ONCE PCI ON M ARIN -R OD RI GUEZ, 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
.

OnPeti tionfor Revi ewof anOr de rof the B o ard of Immigration App eals
. No . A 098 725 619
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 17, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 6, 2013

Be f o re M ANI ON an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges, a nd L EE, D istrict Judge.  M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Jos e C on c ep c ion M ar in -R od rigu e z , a c i t i z e n o fMex i c o , s o ughtc a nc e l l a t i o n o fr e moval b ec au se h is re m ov al w ou ld ca u se h a r d sh ip for h is2 N o. 12

- 2253 chi l dren, wh o ar e Un i ted S tat es ci tizens. U l ti m ate l y, an I m m i gr ati on J ud ge concl ud ed that Rodri guez w as not e l i g ib l e f o rc a ncel l a t i o n o fr e mov a lb e c a us e h e h a d a pri orco nvi cti on forusi ng a fra u du l ent S oci alS ecuri ty car d to obt ai n and m ain tain em plo ym ent that a m ounted to a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al tu rp itu d e. T h e B oa rd o f Im m ig ratio n Appea l s affi r m ed, a nd Ro dr i g ue z no w pet i ti o ns th is c ou rtfor re vie w . B ec au se th e a ge n c y d i d n oterr in c l a s s i fy i n g R o d r i g u e z ’ s c o n v i c t i o n a s o n e f o r a c r i me i nv o l vingmor altur pi tu de, we den y hi s pet i ti o n.

I . F a c t ua l B a c kg r o und Rodri guez i l l ega l l y enter ed the U ni ted St ate s i n 19 88. D u e t o a mi s d e me a n o rD UIc o n v i c t i o n i n 2 0 0 5 , h e c a me to th e at tenti on o fthe Dep ar tm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty ( “ D HS ” ) , w h i c h i n i t i a t e d th e p r o c e s s o fr e mov i n gh i m. Du ring thi s pro cess , the DH S disc ove re d that he had been usi ng a soc i alse curi ty car d an d n um bernot as si g ne d t o hi m . Ro dr i g ue z was c ha r g ed wi tha nd p lead ed guilty to us in g a frau d ulen t Social Secu rity card to obtain and m ai ntai n em plo ym ent withi n the U ni ted States i n violation of 18 U .S .C
. § 1546(a). Rod riguez’s g ui l typl eai nc l ude d the f o l l o wi ngs ti pul at i o n: The pa rti es agr ee the f acts co nsti tuti ng the o ffense to w hi ch the defe nd ant i s p l eadi ng guil ty ar e a s fol l ows: B et w ee n Jan u ar y 1 99 9 a n d M ay 20 05 , th e d efe n d an t, a ci ti zen o fM exi co w ho i s no t a citi zen o r nati onalo f th e Uni te d S ta te s, use d a so ci alse cur i tycar d, kno wi ng th at c ar d w as not ass i gned to hi m and had beenN o. 12

- 2253 3 unlawful l y obtained, to se cure and m ai ntai n em plo ym ent .
. . i n W i chi ta, S edgw i ek County, Kansas. S uch a docum ent, wh en authent i c, i s e vi dence thata pe rson i s a uthor i zed to be em plo yed in the U ni ted St ate s. The d efe n d ant use d the fra ud ule nt car d fo r that pu rpos e. A t a subse quent hear i ng be f or e a n I m m i gr ati on J udg e ( “IJ ”) , Ro dr i g ue z co nc ede d rem o vabi l i ty, b ut soughtcance llati on o fr em ova l
. The IJ ’ s co urt w as loc at ed in C h ica go , I llin ois , w h ile R od rig u ez a p p ea re d via te l e- vi deo fr o m Kans as Ci ty, M i ss o ur i
. Pur su an t to the ap p lica b le re gu lat ion s, see8 C .F.R . § 10 03 .47 (c )-(d ), th e IJ or dered Rodri guez to subm i t a se t o ffi nger pri nts ne ede d t o de te r m i ne hi s i den ti ty an d whethe r he ha d a ny d isqu ali fyi ng crim in a l con victions. Fi fteen m ont hs l ater, at hi s next hear i ng, Rodri guez sti l lhad not com pli ed w ith the IJ ’ s or der. Thu s, anothe r IJ ( w ho w as l oca te d in K ansas City, M i sso uri ) deem ed Rodri guez’ s a pp l i cati on f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova laba nd oned f orhi s “ f ai l ure to fu lfill th e re q u ire m en ts of h is b iom et r i c s a n d bio gr ap h ic i nfo rm ati on chec k. ” The IJthen or dered Rodri guez re m ove d. Rodri guez appeal ed to the Board o fI m m i gr ati on A p p ea ls (“ B oa rd ”). W h ile h is a p p ea l w as p en d in g, R od riguez subm i tte d a se t offi nger pri nts a nd m ove d to re m and. The B oa rd deem ed hi s m oti on unti m el y a nd di sm i ss ed his appea l
. Butthe n Ro dr i g ue z m o ve d f o rr ec o nsi derat i on, and the Board g ra nted this m oti on a nd r em anded to the I m m i gr ati on Court
. B e f o r e th e IJ c o u l d r u l e , h o we v e r, th e DH S a sk ed th e Board t o re consi der b ecause Rodri gu ez had al re ady be en4 N o. 12

- 2253

Bec aus e Rodri gue z a nd the c onc l us i on ofhi s i m m i gr at i on 1 p ro ceed i ngs wer e l oc at ed i n M i s s our i , the DH S o bs er ves in i t s br i efthatthe Ei ghth Ci rc ui t, rath er thanourc i rc ui t, i s the cor rect v en u e for this case. H ow ev er, the ag en cy exp ressly w aives any chall enge to venu e. re m ove d to M exi co. Concl u d i ng tha t i t l acke d j uri sdic

ti o n, the Bo a r d g r a nt e d the DHS ’ mo t i o n a nd wi thd re w i ts re m and or der. R odri guez peti ti oned thi s co urt f or re lief. W e h eld th atth e B oa rd err ed in ru lin g th atit l acke d j uri sdic ti on, and w e g ra nted Rodri guez’ s p eti ti on a n d rem an d ed to th e B oa rd
. See M a r i n - Ro d r ig u e z v. Ho lder, 6 1 2 F
. 3 d 5 91, 594- 9 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. We o b s e r v e d, how eve r, thato ur r em and m i ght pr ovi de l i ttl e sol ace f or R od rig u ez be c au se h is s ec tio n 15 46 ( a ) c on vic tio n co u ld n ev er th ele ss fru st ra te h is e ffor ts to av oid rem ov al. Id. The Board then r em anded Rodri guez’s i m m i gr ati on proce edi ngs to the I m m i gr ati on Court. A new IJ, also l oca ted i n K ansas Ci ty, M i sso uri, i ssued a w ri tte n dec i si o n r ul i ngtha t Ro dr i g ue z was i ne l i g ibl e f o rc an c e l l a t i o n o fr e mov a lb e c a us e h i s s e c t i o n 1 5 4 6 ( a ) c o nv i ct i o n wa s f o ra c r i me i nv o l v i ngmo r a ltur pi tud e . On ap p ea l, th e B oa rd ad op te d an d affirm ed th e IJ’s d ec is i o n . R o d r i g u e z n o w p e t i t i o n s th i s c o u r tf o rr e v i e w. 1

I I . Discussi on O n ap p e a l , Ro d rig u ez d oe s n otd isp u te th ath e w ou ld b e in elig ible for c an c ella ti on of re m ov al if h e w as in fac t c on vic te d of a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e. See 8 U.S
. C. § 1 229b ( b )( 1) ( C). But Rodri guez conte nd s thatN o. 12

- 2253 5 the a gencyer re d i n conclud i ng tha t hi s co nvi cti on for us i nga fr au dul en t S o ci alS ec ur i tyc ar d t o o btaina nd m ai ntai n em plo ym ent in vi ol at ion o fse cti on 1 546( a) const i tutes a cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e. “W hether a n a l i e n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y c l a s s i fi e d a s a c r i me ofm or altur pitud e i s a q u es tio n o fl aw , so we m ay re vi ew i t. ” La gu na s-Sa lga do v . Ho lder, 58 4 F
. 3d 707, 71 0 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ) (cit in g 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2 )(D )). W h ile l e g a lque s t i o ns a r e u s ua l l yr e v i e we d deno vo , “ [ o ] ur review of an agen cy’s d eterm ination of w he th er a parti cul arcr i m e s houl d be c lassi fi ed as a cr i m e o fm or al tu rp itud e ordin aril y i s d eferential un d er Che vron . . . .” M at a- Gue r re r o v. Ho lder, 627 F.3d 256 , 259 (7th C ir. 2 010)
. B utwe do n o te xt e nd Che vron defer ence to non- prece denti alBoar d decis i ons that do not re l y o n b i n d in g b oa rd p re c ed en t. A rob elidz e v. Ho lder, 6 5 3 F. 3d 51 3, 5 20 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. Ra th er, s uchBo ar d de ci si o ns ar e e nti tl ed onl y t o Sk idm o redefer en c e. Id. There f or e, because th e B oar d opi ni on fro m wh i ch Rodri guez appe al s is no n- pr ec ede nt i al, i ts i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe i m m i g r at i o n s ta tu te s an d r egul at i o ns i s e nt i tl ed to o ur re spect

—but onl y to the extent that i nter preta tion h as the “ po w er to per suade. ” Id. ; Chr i s t e ns e n v . Har r i s Cnty. , 529 U
. S. 576, 587 (2000 ). The i m m i g r at i o n s ta tu te s us e butdo no t d efi ne the phrase “cr i m e invol vi ng m or al turpi tude. ” See8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I ) ; 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i ) ( I )
. And un til 2008, the “abs ence ofan a uthor i tat i ve adm i ni str at i v e met ho do l o g y f or r eso l vi ng m or al tur pit ud e i nquir i es ha[ d] r esul ted i n differ ent a pp roac hes a cro ss the c ountr y. ” Si l va- Tre vi no , 2 4 I
. & N. D e c . 6 8 7, 69 3 ( AG6 N o. 12

- 2253 20 08 )
. Thu s, the a g en cywoul d appl y the l aw o fthe c i r c u it in w h ich an alien ’s c as e a ro se . Id. Li k e m ost ci rcui ts, o ur decisi ons gener al l y a pp l i ed the cate gor i cal and m odi fi ed cate gor i calfra m ew or k adopted by Taylo rv. U n ited S ta tes , 4 9 5 U. S
. 5 7 5 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , a nd Shepar d v
. U nited Sta tes , 5 44 U. S
. 13 ( 20 05 ) , f o ra ppl y i ngr ec i di vi ste nhancem ents i n federa lcr i m i nalpro secuti ons. See Aliv. M uk a sey, 521 F.3d 73 7, 74 1, 74 2 n .† (7t hC ir. 20 08 ); Ha shish v. G o nz a les , 4 42 F
. 3d 572, 5 75

- 76 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( co l l ec ting c a s e s ). U n d er th atap p ro ac h, th e d ec isio n m ak er w ou ld “d ete rm i ne wh ethera gi ven cr i m e nec ess ar i l y invol ves m o r altur pi tu de bye xa m i ningo nl y the e l ement s o fthe st atute unde rwhi chthe a l i enwas c o nv i ct ed an d the r ec o r d o fc o nv ict i o n, no t th e ci r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ng the par ti cul artr ansgr ess i on. ” P a dil l a v. G o nz a les , 39 7 F. 3d 1016 , 10 19 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om itted ). T he n, i n A li v. M uk a sey, we r e l i e d u po n 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 3 ) ( B) a nd Babais akov, 24 I. & N . D ec . 306 (B IA 2007 ) , to hol d that “ w hen deci ding how to cl ass i fy c onvi cti o ns u nd e rc r i t e r i a tha tg o b e y o nd the c r i mi na lc ha rg e

— su ch as . . . w he th er the crim e is one o f ‘m oral tu rp itud e’, the a gencyhas th e d isc re ti on t o consi der e vi dence beyo n d th e ch ar gin g pa p er s an d j u d gm en t o fc o n vic tio n .” 521 F. 3d at 743. S u bsequentl y, i n 200 8, the A tto rney Gen er alr el i ed upo n A lii n a d opti ng a hi er ar chi cal o rs eq ue nt i althr ee - st ep i nqui r y t o b e us ed bythe en tir e a ge n c y in d ec id in g w h ich cr i m es are m or ally tu rp itu d in ou s. Se eSi l va- Tre vi no , 24 I
. & N
. Dec. at69 6- 704. The fi r sta nd s ec o nd s te ps o fthi s i nqui ry ge ne r al l y c o i nc i de wi th the c a t e g o r i c a land m od i fi e d c a t e g o r i c a la p-N o. 12

- 2253 7

I n h i s br i ef, Rodri gue z ques t i ons whethe r the thi rd s t ep ofthe 2 Si l va - Tr e vi no fra m ew ork pe rm i t s as br oad a c ons i der at i on of add it ional evidence as perm it ted und er the st and ard arti culat ed i n A li
. Reg ardles s, as disc uss ed b el ow , the agency res olved R od ri guez’ s cas e atthe s econd step , a n d h e was given an op po r t un i t y t o pr e s e nta ny a ddi t i on a l e vi de nc e h e wi s he d. R odri gue z a l s o e xpr es s es doubt s abo utthe c ont i nue d vi t alit y ofpre- Si l va - Tr e vi no dec i s i ons thathe l d thatc onvi c t i ons u nd er sectio n 1 54 6 for c o n d u c t inv olv ing d eceit o r m isuse of official d ocu m en ts w ere for crim es inv olv ing m or a l tur p itu d e. W e ne ed no t ad d ress th is q u an d ary b eca u se, as w e d iscuss bel ow, Rodri gue z’ s pe t i t i on c an be di s pos ed o fbas ed o n o ur dec i s i on i n Lagunas- Salgado , 584 F. 3d at 712, w hich post- dates Si l va - Tr e vi no . A num berofc i rc ui t s ha ve rej ec t ed the thi rd s t ep ofthe 3 Si l va- Trevi no fra m ew o rk
. S ee Pru den ci o v . Hol der, 669 F. 3d 472, 4 8 4 (4t h C ir . 20 1 2 ); Faj a r do v. A t t ’y Ge n. , 659 F. 3d 1303, 1310 (1 1 th C ir . 20 1 1 ); Je a n-Lou i s v. Att ’y Ge n. , 582 F. 3d 462, 482 ( 3d C ir . 20 0 9 ); seeal so G ua r da do

- G a r cia v. H ol der, 615 F. 3d 900, 90 2 ( 8th C ir. 20 10 ) (“W e are b ou nd b y ou r circu it’ s p r e c e d e n t, an d to the exten t Si l va - Tr e vi no is inco nsisten t, w e ad he re to (co n tin u ed ...) p ro ac h es , res p ec tiv ely
. Id. H ow eve r, the thi rd st ep per m i ts the IJ to c o ns i dera ny e vi den ce b ey o nd the st atut e an d r ec o r d o f co nv i ct i o n, as i n A li
. Id. Th is third st ep “i s pr o per l y a ppl i ed o nl y wher e t he r ec o r d o fc o nvi cti on does noti tse l fr eso l ve the i ssue . . . .” Ahor t al e j o- Guzm an , 2 5 I. & N
. De c. 465, 468 (BIA 2011). W e hav e det er m i ned that Si l va- Tre vi no ’ s e nti re fra m ew or k i s e nti tl ed to Che vron defer ence. See M a ta -G uerrero , 2 627 F. 3d at 260. 38 N o. 12

- 2253

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 ci rcui t l aw .”). H ow ever, as disc uss ed b el ow , the agency re s ol ved Rod rig u ez’ s c as e atthe s ec ond s t ep ( whic h i s ge ner a lly co n sis te n t w ith th e m o d ifie d ca te g o ri ca l a p p ro a ch ). H er e, the age ncy a pp l i ed the Si l va- Tre vi no fram ew ork an d c o nc l ud e d, a tthe fi r s ts t e p, tha ts e c t i o n 1546 ( a) re al i sti cal l y e ncom passes so m e co nd uct that i s no t m orally turp itud inou s. A t the secon d step , how ever, the a gencyf ound that Rodr i guez’ s r eco rd o fco nvi cti on est abl i shes that hi s cr i m e invol ved m or altur pitud e. That deci si on was co rr ect. Cr i m es e nt ai l i nga n int en t to de ce i ve or defr au d ar e u n q u es tio n a b l y m or ally tu rp itu d in ou s. See Jordan v. DeG e orge, 34 1 U.S
. 22 3, 23 2 ( 1951 ) ( “[ T]he deci ded cas es m ake i t pl ai n that cri m es i n w hi ch fra u d was an i ng r edi en t ha ve al way s be en r eg ar ded as i nvo l ving m or al t u rp itu d e.” ); A bd elqa da r v. G o nz a les , 413 F. 3d 668, 671 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “Cri m es entai l i ng decei t o r f al se state m en t ar e wi th i n the c o r e o fthe c o m m o n- l aw un der

st an d in g of ‘m or a l tu rp itu d e.’ ”); P adilla , 39 7 F
. 3d at 1020

- 21 ( co l l ec tingc as es )
. And i n La g u na s-Sa lga do v. Ho lder, w e he l d tha ts e l l i ngfr a ud ul e nti mm i g r a t i o n do c ume nt s to illega l alien s is m o r a lly tu rp itu d in ou s b ec au se it “i nvol ves i nherent l y dece pti ve conduct. ” 5 84 F. 3d at71 2. Si m i l ar l y, o therci rcu its h ave re cogni zed thatthe use off al se i m m i gr ati on docum ents i nvol ves th e ki nd o f decei t o r fra ud that renders a cri m e m or al l y turpi tudinous. See, e . g. , L a te ef

v. D ep’tof Hom el and Sec. , 59 2 F
. 3d 926, 928, 9 31 ( 8th Ci r. 20 10) ( hol ding al i en’ s co nvi cti on forN o. 12

- 2253 9 “u sing an un law full y ob t a ined social secu rity nu m ber” w a s fo r a c rim e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e); Omaga h v
. A shcroft, 2 88 F
. 3d 254, 26 1- 62 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( affi r m i ng Board r uling tha t “ conspi ra cy to posse ss [ i l l ega li m m i gr ati on docum ents] with intent to use doe s r i se to th e l eve l of m oral tu rp itud e . . . . ”). H er e, Rodri guez’ s r eco rd o fco nv ict ion rev eal s that, as pa r to fh i s g ui l ty p l e a , h e a dmi t t e d tha th e “ us e d a so ci alse curi ty car d, knowing that car d w as not ass i gned to him an d ha d been un law full y obta ined , to s e cu re and m ai ntai n em plo ym ent .
. . . ” He al so adm i tte d that he w as aw are tha t a n aut he nt ic Soci al Security card coul d be use d as e vi dence thata pe rs on i s a uthor i zed to work i n the Uni te d S ta te s. By kno wi ng l y pr es en ting a f al se S o ci alS ec ur i ty ca r d t o a n e m pl o y ert o o bt ain a nd m ai ntai n unauthori zed em plo ym ent, Rodri guez not on l y v i ol ate d the l aw but al so engag ed i n decepti ve conduct. T h e d ec ep tiv e n at u re of R od rig u ez ’s c on d u c t is ev en m or e e x p licitth an th atof th e a lien ’ s c on d u c t in Lagu nas - Salgado
. H er e, Rodri guez’ s use o fa f al se So ci al S ec ur i tyc ar d was di r ec tly de ce p ti ve : he pr es en te d the c a r d t o a n e mp l o y e rw i th th e i n t e n tt o d e c e i v e th a te mp loy er int o th in kin g th ath e w as lega lly em p loy ab le. In co nt r as t, the a l i eni n Lagu nas - Salgado w as n o t d ire c tly decei vi ng any one, but onl y sell i ng f al se i m m i gr ati on docum ents to al i ens who coul d then use t h em for d ec ep tiv e p u rp os es . See Lagu nas - Salgado , 58 4 F.3d at 7 12 (“That the r eci pie nts them sel ves w er e no t dece i ved does not change the f act that Lagunas- Sal gado w as10 N o. 12

- 2253

Because Rod ri guez’ s condu ctw a s inhere ntl y d ece ptive, 4 Lag u n as -Salgado d ispo ses of R od rig u ez’s conte ntio n th at it is pos s ibl e that he di d not ac t ual l y de c ei ve hi s e m pl oye r when he p resen ted his false Socia l Secu rity card
. H is use o f a false Soci al Securi ty car d to obta in an d m aint ain unauthorize d em ploym ent evidences an i ntentto d ece ive hi s em ployer re g a rd le ss of w h et h er th e em p lo y er w a s a ct u a l l y d e c ei v ed
. C f. Om agah , 288 F.3d at 261. In f act, Ro driguez carri ed the burd en o fest a b lis h in g h is e lig ib ili ty for ca n ce lla tio n, see 8 C
. F
. R. § 1 2 4 0 .8 (d ), ye t he failed to offer an y ev id en ce tha t his e m pl oy e r wa s n otdec e i ve d or th a the di d n oti nt e nd t o de c e i ve h is e m p lo y er w h en h e u se d th e fa lse So ci a l S ec u ri ty ca rd
. sel l i ng fra ud ule nt S oci alS ecu rit y cards and al i en r egistration card s and placing them out into th e w o r ld
. ”). Lagunas- Sal gado’ s ind i re ctl y dece pti ve co nd uct was “inhe r en tly de ce pti ve ” be ca us e o fth e ri sktha t th e al i en s p u rc h as in g th e c ar d s w ou ld u se t h e m d ec ep tiv ely

— ex ac tl y the so rto fdecepti ve use, as i t happens, i n w hi ch R o d rig u ez en ga ge d . C on se q u en tly , Ro d rig u ez ’s d ire c tly d eceptiv e use o fa f al se So ci alS ecuri ty car d to obta in and m ai ntai n unau thor i zed em plo ym ent a fortio rial so
“ i n v o l v e s i n h e r e n t l y d e c e p t i v e c o n d u c t
. ” And , a s we 4 al r ea dy o bs er ve d, c r i m es i nv o l vingde ce i t ar e “wi th i n the c or e o f th e c o m m on -law u n d er st an d in g of ‘m or al t u rp itude. ’ ” Abde l q adar, 4 13 F
. 3d at6 71
. The r efo r e, we co nc lu d e t h atth e a ge n c y d id n oterr in h old in g th atR od rigu ez’s convi cti on was f ora cri m e invol vi ng m or alturp itude. Rodri guez’ s a rgum ents to the c ontr ar y a re notper suasi ve. C ertainl y, as Rodri guez poi nts o ut, Boar d prece-N o. 12

- 2253 11

R o d r i g u e z i s c o r r e c tth a tfe d e r a l l a w d o e s n o ti mp o s e c r i m- 5 ina l pe na lties on i l leg al alien s m erely b eca u se they w or k in (co n tin u ed ...) den t es tabl i sh es tha t a co nv i ct i o n fo rmer ely po ss es sing ana l te r ed i m m i g r at i o n do cum en t do es no t co nsti tute a cr i m e involving m or altur pitud e be cause an alie n “ m igh t n oth av e h ad th e in te n t t o u se th e a lt e r e d i mmi g r a t i o n d o c u me n ti n hi s po s s e s s i o n u n l a wful l y. ” Se r na , 20 I
. & N
. Dec. 57 9, 58 6 ( BIA 1992)
. But, as wi ththe a l i eni n Lagu nas - Salgado , Rodri guez “w as not co nv i ct ed o fmer ely po ss es sing a f al se do cument, ” but rath er of us i ng that f al se docum ent in a way that i nvol ved decepti on o r the in te n t to decei ve. 58 4 F
. 3d at 7 1 2
. S i mi l a r l y, R o dr i g u e z ’ s a r g u me n t s th a th i s c r i me w as no t b a se, vil e, fraud ulen t, or m a lum in seare w i thout m er i t be cause, as we have e xplained, t h e agency di d no t er ri n fi ndi ngtha t hi s co nduc t i nv o l ve d de ce pti o n, and gener al l y “ a c rim e invo l vi ng di shones ty orf al se st at em en t is co n si d er ed to be on e in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itude. ” P adilla , 39 7 F
. 3d at 1020 ( quoti ng It ani v. As h croft, 2 9 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 5 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i on m ar ks om itt ed )); s e eal s o L agun as - Salga do , 58 4 F
. 3d at 71 2; La teef

, 592 F.3d at92 8, 93 1; O m agah , 28 8 F
. 3d at 261- 62. Rodri guez al so argu es thathi s co nvi cti on forusi ng a f al se S o ci alS ec ur i tyc ar d c anno t be f o ra c r i m e inv o l ving m or altur pit u d e un l ess the und er l yi ng co nd uct was al so i l l ega l
. Rodri guez conte nd s that he on ly used the f al se So ci alS ecuri ty car d to obtain and m ai ntai n em plo ym ent, wh i ch i s no t il leg al. Rodri guez’ s pos i ti on i s no t 512 N o. 12

- 2253

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 th e U n i t e d St a te s. S ee A rizon a v. Un i te d S tat es , 132 S. Ct. 2492, 24 95 ( 20 12 )
. Butthatfede ra l l aw i m pos es c i v il pe nal t i es on suc h co nd u ct w he n d etected , an d crim ina l as w ell as civ il penalti es on em ployers w ho hire i ll egal al ie ns, dem onst rat es thats uc h c onduc ti s f ar from in no c en torpr ai s ewor thy

— even if u b iqu itou s. S u b se q u en tly re co d ifie d at 42 U .S.C . § 4 0 8 (e). 6 tenabl e in l i ght o fthe rul e that c ri m es invol vi ng decepti on ar e m or ally tu rp itu d in ou s. Fu rt h er m or e, th e B oa r d d e c isi ons ci ted by R od ri guez

— Gran ados , 16 I
. & N
. Dec. 72 6 ( BIA 1979) ( hol ding that posse ssing a c onceal ed w eapon i s no t a c r i me i nv o l v i ngmo r a ltur pi tud e ) , a nd S-, 6 I
. & N. Dec. 76 9 ( BIA 1955) ( hol ding that posse ssing instr um ents ofhouse-bre aking i s no t a cr i m e invol vi ng m or al turpi tude)

— ar e di stingu ishab le becau se th eyinv o l ve d c o nvi cti ons f orm er el y po ss e s s i ng u n l a wfu li t e ms . As we ex p lain ed ab ov e, pos s e s s i on i s d i ffe r e n tfr o m use . And , un l i k e Ro dr i g ue z ’ s u s e o fa f a l s e S o c i a lS e c ur i ty c a r d, m er el y pos ses si ng weapons orburg l ar y i m ple m ents do es no t i nv o l ve de ce pti o n. H o wev er, Ro dr i g ue z al so r el i es o n Bel t ran- Tirado v. INS , 2 13 F
. 3d 11 79 , 1 18 4 ( 9th Ci r . 2000), wher ein the N i nth C ircuitl oo ked to the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryo f42 U
. S. C. § 40 8(d ) ( 1) to r ule thatthe “use ofa f al se So ci al 6 Se c u rit y n u m b er to fu rt h er oth er w ise lega l be h av ior is not a cr i m e o f‘ m or altur pitud e’
. . . . ” The Ninth Ci r cui t r el ied, s pec i fi ca l l y, upo n a c o ng r es si o na lc o nfer ence com m i tte e r epor t s tat i ng tha t the exem pti onN o. 12

- 2253 13

Ro d ri gue z c i t es thi s r epo rti n h i s br i ef; buton l y f or the 7 p ro p osition tha t a crim e can no t be m or ally tur p itud i n o u s ifit is not m al u m i n se

— an argum ent thatw e have add re ssed abov e and need not belabor here. fro m p ro se c u tio n p ro vid ed b y s ec tio n 40 8(d )(1) on ly appli es “to tho se i nd i vi du al s who use a f al se soc ial se c u rit y n u m b er t o en ga ge in o th er w ise law fu l co n d u c t.” 7 H
. R
. C onf. R ep . N o. 101-964 , at 9 4 8 (199 0), repr inte d in 1990 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 23 74 , 2 653. The r epor t a l so sta tes th at th e “C onferees beli eve th at ind ivi d ua ls w ho are p ro vid ed ex em p t ion from p ro se c u tio n u n d er th is propos alshou ld n ot be c onsi dered to have exhibi ted m or a l tur pi tud e wi th r e s pe c t t o the e xe mpt e d a c t s f or pu rpos es ofdeter m i nati ons m ade bythe I m m igr ati on and N atur al i zati on S er vi ce. ” Id. H ow ev er , th e F ifth , Six th , an d E igh th circ u its h av e a ll d e c l i n e d t o f o l l o w Bel t ran- Tirado
. See G u ardado -Ga rc ia , 6 1 5 F .3d at90 2-0 3; Serra to -So to v. Ho lder, 57 0 F
. 3d 686, 69 2 (6t h C ir. 20 09 ); Hyd er v. Keisler, 50 6 F
. 3d 388, 39 3 ( 5th Cir
. 20 07)
. W e no w j oin th ose ci rcui ts i n decl i ni ng to f o l l ow a d e c i s i o n tha t“ a pp e a r s t o h a v e e xp a nd e d a n ar ro w ex em p tio n be yo n d w h atC on gr es s in t e n d ed .” Hyd er, 50 6 F
. 3d at 393. A s Rodri gu ez c onced es, se cti on 408( d)( 1) and i ts att endant l egi sl ati ve hi sto rydo not apply to hi m . A nd “[ t]h e m ere f act that Congre ss chose to exem pt a c er tain cl ass o fal i ens fro m pro secuti on for cer tain ac ts does not necess ar i l y m ean that those act s do not i nvol ve m or altur pitud e in othe r conte xts. ” Id. F ur the r m o r e, t o a do pt th e r ea so ni ngi n Bel t ran- Tirado14 N o. 12

- 2253 woul d b e to de par t, a t l ea stp artly, fr o m o urpr ec ede nt est abl i shi ng tha t cr i m es of decei t and fr aud i nvol ve m or al tu rp itu d e. See, e . g. , Ab d e l q a dar, 4 13 F.3d at67 1; P adilla , 397 F. 3d at 1020

- 21. W e a gr ee w i th th e Fifth and Si xth ci r cui ts tha t sucha de par tu r e fr o m o urpr ec ede nt w ou ld n otbe ap p ro p ria te
. SeeSe rrato-Soto , 570 F. 3d at 692 ( “ An d i n d e c l i n i n gt o f o l l o w Bel t ran- Tirado , we do not di sturb es tabl i she d S i xth Ci r cui t pr ec ede ntfi ndi ng cri m es offra ud o r disho nestywithi n the cl ass o fcr i m es in vo lvin g m or al t u rp itu d e.” ); Hyd er, 50 6 F
. 3d at 393.

I I I . Concl usio n Because the ag ency cor re ctly d ete rm i ned that J ose Concepcion M ar i n-Rodr i guez’ s pri orco nvi cti on for us i nga fr au dul en t S o ci alSecur i tyc ar d t o o bt ain a nd m aint ain e m p l o y m en t was f o ra c r i m e inv o l ving m or altur pitud e, we D EN Yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.

3- 6- 13