2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-6-2009 

# J e an-Loui s v

. Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3311

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" J e an-L oui s v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 341. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/341P 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. 07- 3311

LY O N EL JEA N

- LO U I S, Pet i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , R es pondent

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 25- 450- 823) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e R os al i nd K

. M al l oy

A r gued February5, 20092 B efor e: R E N D E L L and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and

H A Y D E N , D i s t r i ctJ udge* ( Fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2009)

C ra ig R . S h a g in , E s q . [ ARGUE D] T he Shagi n L aw G r oup T he I nns of St

. J udge 120 Sout h St r eet H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el f orP et i t i oner K e v in J . C o n w a y , E s q . [ ARGUE D] R i char d M

. E vans , E s q. B r ooke M

. M aur er , E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el f orR es pondent

__________________
* H onor abl e K at h arine S

. H ay d en, J udge of t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof N ew Jerse y (N e w a rk ), s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n .J ean- L oui s pl ed gui l t yt o s i m pl e as s ault in vi ol at i on of 18 1 P a . C .S . § 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ) o n Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 1 . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia 3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R e n d e ll, C ir c u it J u d g e . W e a re c a lled u p o n to d e c id e w h e th e r s im p le a ss a u lt underPenns y l vani a l aw , w her e the vi ct i m i s under12 y ear s of age a nd t he as s ai l anti s over20 y ear s of age , i s a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m o ra l tu rpitu d e f

o r pu rpo ses o f c an ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al. In doi ng s o w e mustaddr es s a r ece nto p ini on of the A t t orney G ener al t hatadopt s a novel fr amew or k fordet erm i ni ng w hether a pet i t i oner has been convi ct ed of a cr i m e i nvol v ing m o r al turpi tude ( “C I M T ”)

. W e conc l ude th at t he pet i t i onerw as not convi ct ed of a C I M T , and thatw e w i l l appl youres t abl i s h ed m ethodol ogyfor a n al y zi ng C I M T , r atherthan the appr oach re c e n tlya d o p ted b yth e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. I . B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory A ppel l antL y onel J ean- L oui s , a nat i ve and c i t i ze n of H ai t i , w as admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es i n 199 4 as a r efuge e, and bec ame a l aw ful perm anent r es i dent i n 1996. I n 2001, J eanL o u is p led g u iltyto c o m m itt in g sim p le a ss a u lt ag a in st a c h ild u n d e r tw e lv e y e a rs o f

a g e , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. § § 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ). T h e D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity 1s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e w as amended on J une 22, 2001 ( eff ect i ve i n 6 0 d a y s ) , P. L. 6 0 5 , No. 4 8 , § 1 , a n d a g a i n o n Dec

. 9 , 2002 ( eff ect i ve i n 60 day s ) , P. L

. 1391, N o . 1 7 2 , § 1. N ei t her am en d m en t al tered su b p art 27 0 1 (b)(2 ). A n al i en bear s t he burde n of es t abl i s hi ng hi s el i gi bi l i t yfor 2 di s cr et i onarycanc el l at i on of r emoval

. I N A § 240( c) ( 4) ( A ) (i ), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(4)(A )(i ). 4 (“D H S ”) su b seq u en tlyfil ed a N o ti ce to A p p ea r (“N T A ”), char gi ng J ean- L oui s as r emovabl e underthe I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct( “IN A ”) § 2 3 7 (a)(2)(E )(I ). Jea n -Loui s conce ded r e mo v a b i l i t yb u ts o u g h tt o c a n c e l h i s r e mo v a l u n d e rI NA § 2 4 0 (A )(a), 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 b (a). U n d e r th e IN A , d isc re tio n a ryc a n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l is avai l abl e t o an al i en w ho has r es i ded cont i nuous l y i n the U ni t ed S t a t e s f o rs e v e n y e a r s . I NA § 2 4 0 A( a ) ( 2 ) , 8 U. S

. C. § 1229b (a)(2). A n al i en’ s per i od of cont i nuous r es i dency te r m in a te s, h o w e v e r, if h e “ c o m m its a n o f f e n se re f e rre d to in se c tio n 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 ) o f

th is titl e th a t re n d e rs th e a lien in a d m iss ib le t o t he U n it ed St at es unders ect i on 1182( a) ( 2) of thi s t i t l e or re m o v a b le f

ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s u n d e r s e c tio n 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 ).” I N A § 240A ( d) ( 1) , 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b( d) ( 1)

. C r i m es i nvol vi ng 2 mo r a l tu rp i tu d e a r e a mo n g th e o f f e n s e s l i s t e d i n 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(I) . P rio r to h is s e v e n th y e a r o f re sid e n c yin t he U

. S. , J ean- L oui s s t ruck hi s w i fe’ s daught er , w ho w as under t he age of 12, t o di s ci pl i ne herand w as s ubs equent l yconvi ct ed of t he Pe nn s y l va ni a c r i me of s i mpl e a s s a ul t , 18 Pa

. C. S. § 2701( b) ( 2)

. T he I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) concl uded, and the5 B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) aff i r m ed, t hatJ eanL o u is’ s co n v ict ion fo r sim p le a ssau lt o f a ch il d u n d er 1 2 y ea rs of age unders ubpar t2701( b) ( 2) cons t i tut ed a C I M T , r ender i ng Je a n -L o u is in e lig ib le f

o r c a n c e llatio n o f

re m o v a l. T he Penns y lvani a s i m pl e as s aul ts t atut e t o w hi ch J eanL o u is p led g u iltyp ro v id e s in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( a) O f

f e ns e de f i ne d.

- - A per s on i s gui l t yof as s aul ti f he: (1) att em p ts t o ca u se o r i nt ent i onal l y, know i ngl y orr eckl es s l

y c a u se s b o d ilyin

ju ryto an o ther; ( 2) negl i gent l y caus es bodi l y i nj ury t o another w ith a d ea d lyw ea p o n ; or ( 3) at t empt s by phy s i cal m enac e t o putanother i n f e a ro f i m m i n e n ts e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y. ( b) G r a di ng. --S im p le a ss a u l t i s a m i sdem e a n o r of the seco nd deg ree unl ess comm i t t ed:

. . . ( 2 ) a g a i n s t a c h i l d u n d e r 1 2 y e a r s o f a g e byan a d u lt 2 1 y e a rs o f

a g e o r o ld e r, in w h ich c a se it i s a m is d e m e a n o r o f

th e f ir s t d e g re e .B eca us e the B I A i s s ued a s um m aryaff i r m ance , w e ana l y ze 3 th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . S e e D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F

. 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 ) (en b an c). 6 1 8 P a . C .S . § 2 7 0 1 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). N o tin g th a t, “[ I]t is u n c lea r f

r o m th e re c o rd o f

c o n v ictio n w h e th e r th e a ss a u lt R e s p o n d e n t c o m m itte d w a s in te n tio n a l, k n o w in g , o r r e c k le s s ,” th e IJ a ss u m e d th a t Je a n -L o u is “ re c k les sly ” in f licte d b o d ily in ju ryo n a n o th e r— th e lea st c u lp a b le m e n tal s tate sp e c if ied in § 2701( a) ( 1)

. A

. 113. C onfi ni ng heranal y s i s t o t hats ubpartof th e sta tu te, th e IJ d id n o t ad d re ss w h e th e r th e re w a s a c u lp a b ili ty re q u ire m e n t u n d e r su b p a rt 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the IJ d id notcons i derw hether s ubpart 2701( b) ( 2) r equi r ed the def endant t o have kno w n of the und erage st atus of the vi ct i m , or w o u ld appl yi n a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the defe ndant w as notaw ar e, and had no r eas on t o bel i eve, thatthe vi ct i m w as a mi nor . I ns t ead, t he I J r eas oned t hat beca us e the vi ct i m w as under12 y ear s ol d, t he off ens e w as a C I M T : “W h il e the C our ti s cogni zantof the fac tt hats i m pl e as s aul ti s gener al lynotcons i der ed t o be a CI M T , s i mp l e a s s a u l t p l u s a n a g g r a v a t i n g f a c t o ri s a CI M T

. ” A. 1 1 2 (in ter n a l cita tio n o m itt e d ). T h e IJ c ited a s au th o rityf o r th is p rop o sit ion B IA o p inion s inv o lving assa u lt s tha t w ere “a g g rav ated ” b yo th e r types o f f ac tors; spe cifica ll y , theyw ere comm i t t ed w i t h a dea dl yw eapon, comm i t t ed ag ai ns ta l aw enfor cementoffi cer , orr es ul t ed i n t he vi ct i m ’ s death. A

. 112- 13. A ccor di ngl y , t he I J concl uded t hat J ean- L oui s ’ s convi ct i on of s i mpl e a s s a u l tu n d e rs u b p a r t2 7 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) c o n s t i tu t e d a CI M T, r end ering Jea n -L o u is i n eli g ible fo r ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m oval

. T he B I A aff i r m ed. 3W e s um m ar i l ydi s pos e of tw o otheri s s ues ur ged byJ ean- 4 L oui s on appea l

. Fi r s t , J ean- L oui s cont ends t hathi s r i ght s under I N A § 239( a) ( 1) ( C ) & ( D ) and th e D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the U

. S. C ons t i tut i on w er e vi ol at ed, beca us e hi s N o ti ce to A ppear fa il ed to al ert h im to th e C IM T issue

. J e a n -L o u is’ s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m fai l s atthe out s et , beca us e an a l i en s eeki ng di s cr et i onaryr el i ef f

r om r emoval has no cogniza bl e l i ber t yor propert yi nter est

. See Her nandez v. G onz al es , 437 F. 3d 341, 345- 46 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. M or eover , anys uch fai l ur e w as harm l es s , as J ean- L ouis w as ade quat el yappr i s ed of the i s s ue, havi ng “pr epar ed a br i ef on the t opi c [C I M T ] i n ant i ci pat i on of th e o b je c tio n .” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 6 ; A . 1 3 2 -3 3 , 2 1 0

. J ean- L oui s ’s s ec o nd ar gum enti s t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a r emand of hi s cas e t o t he I J t o have hi s cl ai m forw i t hhol di ng of r emoval deci ded. H ow ever , t o dat e, J ean- L oui s has notfi l ed–or so u g h t lea v e to f

ile– a n a p p lica tio n f

o r w ith h o ld in g o f

re m o v a l, d e s p ite a m p le o p p o rt u n ity to d o s o . 7 I I . D i s cus s i on O n appeal , J ean- L oui s cont ends thathe i s el i gi bl e for di s cr et i onary canc el l at i on of r emoval beca us e hi s convi ct i on of s i m pl e as s aul tdoes not q u ali fyas a C I M T

. C r i m es i nvol vi ng 4 m o ra l t u r p itu d e h a v e b e e n h e ld to re q u ire c o n d u c t th a t is “inh ere n tl yb ase , v il e, or d ep rav ed .” Kn a p ik v . A sh c ro

ft , 384 F

. 3 d 8 4 , 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ) (i n terna l c ita tio n s o m itted). In d e t e r mi n i n g whe t h e ra s t a t e l a w c o n v i c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s a CI M T, th e a g e n c y , an d w e , h a v e h isto ric a llya p p lied a “ c a teg o ric a l” appr o a c h , “ f

o c u s i n g o n t h e u n d e r l y i n g c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e ‘ r a t h er t han the al i en’s sp eci fi c ac t
. ’ ” Id

. at88 ( quot i ng D eLeon-I n Shepar d v. U ni t ed Stat es , t he Supr eme Courtopi ned that 5 t he r ecor d of co n vi ct i on i ncl udes t he cha r gi ng document , t he pl ea a gr eem en t ort r ans cr i ptof the pl ea c ol l oquyi n w hi ch the d ef en d an t con firm ed the f ac tual b asis fo r th e p lea , o r a compar abl e j u d ici al r ecor d of i nform at i on. 544 U

. S. 13, 26 (2 0 0 5 ). 8 R e y n o so v . A sh c ro

ft , 2 9 3 F

. 3 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) )

. We th u s “ lo o k to th e e lem e n ts o f th e s ta tu to rysta te o f

f e n se , n o t to t he s peci fi c fa ct s , ” r eadi ng the appl i cabl e s t atut e t o as cert ai n the l eas tcul pabl e conduc tnece s s aryt o s us t ai n convi ct i on undert he s t atut e. I d. ( quot i ng W

ilso n v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 0 F. 3 d 3 7 7, 381 ( 3d C ir

. 2 0 0 3 )). W her e a s t atut e of c onvi ct i on cont ai ns di s j unct i ve el ement s , s om e of w hi ch ar e s uffi ci entforconvi ct i on of the f e d e r a l o f f e n s e a n d o th e r s o f

whi c h a r e n o t , we h a v e d e par t ed fr o m a str ictcat egor i cal appr oach. I n s uch a c as e, w e have conduct ed a li m it ed fa ctual i nqui r y , exami ni ng the r ecor d of c o n v ictio n f

o r th e n a rro w p u rp o se o f d e ter m in in g th e sp e c if ic s ubpar tunderw hi ch the def endantw as convi ct ed. See Si ngh v. A sh c ro ft , 383 F. 3d 144, 162 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. W e have appl i ed 5 t hi s “modi fi ed” c at egor i cal appr oach, even w hen cl ears ect i onal d iv is io n s d o n o t d e lin e a te th e s ta tu to ry v a ri a tio n s , s ee G ar ci a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 6 2 F .3 d 2 8 7 , 2 9 3 n .9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) , in o rd e r to det erm i ne the l eas t c ul pabl e conduc ts uffi ci entforconvi ct i on, and, w her e a CIM T i s as s ert ed, m eas ur e t h at conductfor d e p ra v ity.9 H er e, t he I J , appl y i ng t hi s m ethodol ogy , concl uded that t he reckles s i nfli ct i on of b od i l yi njurycon st i tuted the leas t cu lpab le m en tal stat e su ff ici en t fo r co n v ict ion u n d er subp art 2701( a) ( 1)

. Si gni fi cant l y , how ever , the I J di d notcons i derthe stat e o f m ind req u ir ed u n d er s ubpar t2701( b) ( 2) as to the c h il d ’s age. I tcoul d be r ead t o r equi r e thatt he off enderknew o f t he a g e o f th e v ictim , o r th a t th e g ra d in g f a c to r a p p lies if

th e v ictim w as under12, w hetherornotthe defendantknew of herage. A l t hough w e def

ert o t he age ncy ’ s det erm i nat i on of w hetheran o f f e n se c o n stitu tes a C IM T , w e a c c o rd n o d e f e re n c e to its construct i on of a s t at e cr i m i nal s t atut e, as t o w hi ch i thas no p a rt ic u la r e x p e rt is e . S e e Kn a p ik , 384 F. 3d at88. H er e, t he det erm i nat i on of the s ci ent erorl evel of cul pabi l i t yunder su b p a rt (b )(2 ) o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia a ss a u lt statu te is im p o rta n t, for the B IA i t s el f has dr aw n a di s t i nct i on forpurpos es of deci di ng w hether an offe ns e i s a C I M T bas ed on t hi s veryas pect of cul pabi l i t y , as w e di s cus s bel ow . W e thus di s agr ee w i t h t he I J ’ s r eas oni ng t hat t he age of the vi ct i m s houl d be cons i der ed an “aggr avat i ng fac t or , ” a n d concl ude thata more t hor ough an aly sis of

the P en n sy lvan ia crim inal statu te i s in o rde r. B eca us e the par t i es di d notaddr es s t he mi ni m um cul pabi l i t yr equi r ed unders ubpart2701( b) ( 2) , w e r eques t ed fur ther br i efi ng. I n hi s s uppl ement al br i ef, J ean- L oui s ur ges t he C our tt o cons t rue s ubpart270 1 (b)(2) as w r i t t en— i tdoes not expr es s l ypr es cr i be a ment al sta t e r equi r ement , and thus none appl i es . T he governm entci t es evi den ce c ons i s t entw i t h J eanL o u is’s in terp re tatio n o f th e sta tu te, i n c lu d in g th e P e n n sy lv a n ia su g g ested jury instruction s an d ac co m p an y ing A d v isory C om m i t t ee N ot e, nei t her of w hi ch r equi r es t hata j uryfi nd that t he def endantknew , ors houl d have know n, t hatt he vi ct i m w asT he A dv i soryC om m i t t ee N ote t o the Pen nsy lv a n ia 6 Sugges t ed St andar d C r i m i nal J uryI ns t ruct i ons for§ 2701( b) ( 2) i s s i l enton t he appl i cabl e m ent al s t at e r equi r ement : “C r i m es C ode § 2701( b) ( 2) r ai s es s i m pl e as s aul tfr om a mi s demeanorof the s e c o n d d eg ree to a m isde m ea n o r of the f ir st de g ree w h ere t he vi ct i m w as underthe age of 12 and th e d efendantw as an adul t 21 y ear s of age orol der

. ” See Pa. SSJI ( C r i m ) , 15. 2701G (s im p le a s s a u lt- -c h ild v ic tim ). T h e g o v er n m e n t st ates, “T h e su b sec ti o n u n d er w h ich M r. 7 Jean -L ou i s w as conv i ct ed is referred t o in the st atute as a
‘ gr adi ng fac t or . ’ A ccor di ng t o Penns y l vani a ca s e l aw , ‘ t he g rad ing o f th e o ff

en se is n o t an elem en t the reo f.’” R esp o n d en t’ s Suppl ement al B r . at3. 10 u n d er 1 2

. T h e g o v ern m en t al so sp ec ifi ca ll yn o tes th at su b p art

6 2701( b) ( 2) i s a gr adi ng fac t or , not an el ement of the s ubs t ant i ve offe ns e. T hes e as pect s of the st atut e ac tual l ys uppor tJ ean-

7 L oui s ’ s pos i t i on. Qu i t e a p a r t f

r o m t h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s c o n c e s s i o n s , we i nd epende nt l yc on c l ud e tha tno culpabi l i t yrequi rem ent att aches, ex p li cit ly o r i m p li cit ly , to su b p art 27 0 1 (b)(2 ). U n li k e su b p art 2701( a)( 1 ), w hi ch expr es s l yr equi r es thatthe def endant i n te n tio n a lly, k n o w in g ly, o r r e c k le s s ly in f lic t b o d ily in

ju r y, su b p a rt 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ) d o e s n o t sp e c if yth e m in im u m c u lp a b ili ty r equi r ed t o t r i ggerenha n ce d penal t i es . N ori s s uch a r equi r ementi m pl i ci t in t he s t atut e. T he det erm i nat i on t hat s ubpar t2701( b) ( 2) s et s for t h a gra di ng fac t orand notan el ement o f th e o ff

en se is s ig n if

ica n t. A s a “ g rad ing ” f ac tor, su b p art18 Pa. C

. S. § 302( c) defi nes t he r equi s i t e ment al s t at e w hen 8 t he s t atut e i s s i l enton the cul pabi l i t yappl i cabl e t o a mat er i al el em ent of an o ffen se. Itprovides: C u l p ab i l i ty re q u ire d u n l ess ot h erw i se p ro v ide d . -- W h e n th e c u lp a b ili ty su f f icie n t to es t abl i s h a m a ter ia l ele m e n t of an of fens e i s not p re sc rib e d b ylaw , su c h e lem e n t is e sta b lish e d if a per s on act s i nt ent i onal l y , know i ngl y , or r eckl es s l yw i t h r es pectther et o. Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 18 Pa. C

. S. § 302( d) , w hi ch s erves a s l i ght lydi ffe r ent funct i on t han § 302( c) , defi nes t he re qui s i t e ment al s t at e w hen the s tatu te de fin es th e c u lpab il itysu ff ici en t fo r s o me , b u t n o t a ll , m a ter ial e lem e n ts o f

a n o f f e n se . It p ro v id e s: P re scr ibe d cu lpa b il it y re q u irem en t ap p li es to a ll m a ter ia l e lem en ts. -- W hen the l aw defi ni ng an offens e pr es cr i bes the ki nd of cul pabi l i t ythat i s s uffi ci ent for comm i s s i on of a n offe ns e, w i t houtdi s t i ngui s hi ng among t he mat er i al e lem e n ts th e re o f

, su c h p ro v isio n sh a ll a p p lyto a ll t he m ater i al el em ents of the off ense, un l ess a c o n tr a ry p u rp o s e p la in ly ap p e a rs . Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). 11 2701( b) ( 2) does nottr i gger the s t atut ory“gap- fi l l i ng” pr ovi s i ons , w hi ch prov i de a ment al s t at e r equi r ementthat

8M oreove r, t he d esi gn at i on of sub part27 0 1 (b )( 2) as a 9

“ g ra d in g ” facto r h a s s u rv iv e d su b se q u e n t re v isio n s o f th e sim p le as s au l ts t a tu t e . 1 8 Pa

. C. S. § 2 7 0 1 ( a me n d e d i n 2 0 0 1 , J u n e 2 2, P

. L

. 6 0 5 , N o . 4 8 , § 1 ; 20 0 2 , D ec . 9 , P

. L

. 1 3 9 1 , N o . 1 7 2 , § 1 ). W e pr esum e thatt he l egi s l atur e i s “aw ar e of a n admi ni s t r at i ve orj udi ci al i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e and t o adoptthat in te rp re ta tio n w h e n it r e -e n a c ts a s ta tu te w ith o u t c h a n g e .” Lori l l ar d v. P ons , 434 U

. S. 575, 580 ( 1978)

. H ence , w e ca nnot concl ude thatt he l egi s l atur e i nt ended a cul pabi l i t yr equi r ement 12 w oul d be ot herw i s e m i s s i ng fr om “el ement s ” of a n offe ns e. See 18 Pa. C

. S

. § 103 ( defi ni ng “el ement [s ] of an of fens e” a s “conduc torat t endantcircum s t ance s . . . i ncl uded i n the des cr i pt i on of the forbi dden conduc ti n the def i ni t i on of

the o ffen se ”) ( em ph asi s added ); C om m onw eal th v. Sham ber ger , 788 A

. 2d 408 , 418 ( Pa. Super

. 2001) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng “gr adi ng” f a c to r s f r o m th e e le m e n ts o f

a n o f f e n se ); accord C o m m o n w e a lth v . P a ss a re lli , 7 8 9 A

. 2 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 4 (P a . S u p er. 20 0 1 ); C om m onw eal th v. K is ner , 7 3 6 A

. 2 d 6 7 2 , 6 7 4 (P a. S u p er. 19 9 9 ). Th e e x p l i c i td e s i g n a t i o n o f s u b p a r t2 7 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) a s a “ g r adi ng” fac t or i s par t i cul ar l ys t r ong evi dence of the l egi s l at i ve i nt ent her e, as t he di s t i nct i o n b et w een “ gr adi ng” fa ct or s and

“ e lem e n ts” o f

a n o f f e n se w a s a lre a d ye sta b lish e d in Penns y l vani a j ur i s prudence whe n s ubpart2701( b) ( 2) w as added in 1 9 8 8 . P .L . 1 2 7 5 , N o . 1 5 8 , § 1 (D e c . 1 9 , 1 9 8 8 ); s ee, e. g. , C om m onw eal th v. Sparks , 4 9 2 A

. 2 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 5 (P a. S u p er. 19 8 5 ); C o m m o n w e a lth v . M

a th is , 4 6 3 A

. 2 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 0 (P a. S u p er. 19 83 ); C o m m onw eal th v. Stauf f er , 361 A

. 2d 383, 384 ( Pa. S u p e r. 1 9 7 6 ); C om m onw eal th v. McKenni on , 240 A

. 2d 889, 892 (P a. S u p er. 19 7 5 ). 9t o i nher e i n s ubpar t2701( b) ( 2) w hen i t adopt ed and r et ai ned lan g u a g e a c h iev in g p re c ise lyth e o p p o site re su lt. 13 A rec en t dec isi o n o f th e N ew H am p sh ir e S u p rem e C o u rt s uppor t s t he pr opos i ti on thatt he Penns y l vani a gap- fi l l i ng p r o v i s i o n s a r e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o s u b p a r t 2 7 0 1 ( b ) ( 2 )

. I n Stat e v. McC abe , 7 6 5 A

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 8 0 -81 (N .H

. 2 0 0 1 ), the C o u rt c o n sid e re d w h a t m e n tal s ta te re q u ire m e n t, i f a n y , atta c h e d to conduct–“us e of a deadl y w eapon” –that appea r ed i n t he p e n a lty s ect i on o f th e o f

f e n se o f “ c rim in a l th re a ten in g .” T h e sta tu te d id n o t s p e c if

ya m e n ta l s ta te re q u ir e m e n t. Id

. at 18 0

. T h e C o u rt concl ud ed t hatt he N ew H ampshi r e gap- fi l l i ng pr ovi s i on, a p p l i c a b l e s o l e l y t o ma t e r i a l e l e me n t s o f a n o f f e n s e , d i d not gov ern, beca us e “[ t ] he onl ys t atut oryr efe r ence t o the us e of a deadl yw eapon i s cont ai ned i n the pena l t ys ect i on” of the s t atut e, a n d th e g a p - f

il lin g p ro v isio n a p p lies so lelyto el em ents of an o f f e n s e , n o t to g ra d in g f

a c to rs . I d. a t 1 8 0 -8 1 ; se e S ta te v . P o lk , 927 A

. 2d 514, 516- 17 ( N

. H

. 2007) ( hol di ng t hatgap- fi l l i ng pr ovi s i on di d not appl yt o conducts ol el yaff ect i ng gr adi ng of an o f f e n se ); s ee al

s o Stat e v. D em m ons , 6 3 4 A. 2 d 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 0 ( N. H. 1993) ( not i ng thatcul pabi l i ty requi r ementi s onl yi m pl i ed for m aterial elem en ts of

an o ff en se). T h u s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e P e n n sy lv a n ia a ss a u lt statu te as w ri tt en p erm it s a co n v ict ion u n d er su b p art 27 0 1 (b)(2 ) w h ere the d ef en d an t did n o t kn o w that the v ict im w as u n d er 1 2 y ea rs o l d

. T h i s k e yf

a c td i s t i n g u i s h e s t h i s c a s e f r o m th e s t a tu t e we cons i der ed i n P ar t

yka v

. A t t ’

y G en. , 4 1 7 F

. 3 d 4 0 8 , 4 1 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e re , w e h a d to d e ter m in e th e m in im u m c u lp a b ili ty re q u ir e d f

o r c o n v ic tio n o f

th e o f f e n s e o f “ a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt,”14 d e f in e d u n d e r N e w Je rse ylaw a s th e c o m m is sio n o f sim p le as s aul tagai ns t“[a ] nyl aw enfor cementoffi ceract i ng i n t he per form ance of h is d u t i es w hi l e i n uni form orexhi bi t i ng evi dence of hi s author i t y . ” N

. J

. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 12- 1b( 5) ( a) ( W es t1995 & Supp. 2004)

. C oncl udi ng t hat comm i s s i on of an as s aul tagai ns t a l aw enfor cement offi cer w as a mat er i al el ement o f t he off

ens e of a ggr avat ed as s aul t , w e ci t ed Uni t e d S ta t es v. R e b e lo , 358 F. Supp. 2d 400, 418- 19 ( D

. N

. J

. 2005) , w h i ch appl i ed the N ew J er s eygap- fi l l i ng pr ovi s i on, and hel d t hatthe o ff en d er h ad to hav e kn o w n that the v ict im w as a p o li ce o ff icer. Pa r t yka , 417 F. 3d at413. C ruci al t o ouranal y s i s

— and t o t he anal y s i s i n R e b e lo upon w hi ch w e r el i ed— w as t he fa ctt hatt he r el evantcondu ct appear ed i n t he def i ni t i on of the off

ens e of a g g ra v a te d a s s a u lt a n d th u s w a s a n e le m e n t th e re o f

. I d. ( ci t i ng R e b e lo , 3 5 8 F .S u p p .2 d a t 4 1 8 -1 9 ). B e c a u se th e o f f e n d e r h a d to know t hatt he vi ct i m w as an off i cer , the off

ens e r efl ect ed the r e q u i s i t e d e g r e e o f

d e p r a v i t y an d t h u s c o n s t i tu t e d a CI M T. H ere , bycontr as t , t he age of the perpetr at orand vi ct i m are s peci fi ed not i n t he def

i ni t i on of the off

ens e butr ather undert he s epar at e s t atut or yheadi ng, “gr adi ng. ” R egar dl es s of how N ew J erseyl aw t r eat s “gr adi ng” fa ct or s , t hei rs t atus under Penns y l vani a l aw i s cl ear . W her e t he conduct i s i ncl uded under a s t atut or ys ect i on ent i t l ed, “gr adi ng, ” r atherthan u n dert he “def i nit i on ” of the off

ense, the c on du cti s per se notan “e lem en t” of

the o ff en se . See 18 Pa. C

. S. § 103 ( defi ni ng the “el ement s ” of a n offens e as s ol el yconducti ncl uded i n the f o rm a l d e f

in iti o n o f th e o f f e n se ). A c c o rd in g l y , the P enn sy lv a n ia g a p -f ill in g p ro v isio n s— th a t w o u ld o rdinari l ym and at e a sp e c if ic m e n tal s tate w ith re sp e c t to th e v ictim ’s a g e

— d o n o t a p p lyto su b p a rt 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ), an d th e re is n o c u lp a b ili tyre q u ire m e n t as to th a t su b p a rt.15 B as ed upon the for egoi ng anal y s i s , w e conc l ude thatthe least cu lp a b le c o n d u ct ne ce ssaryfo r co n v ict ion u n d er su b p art 2 7 0 1 (b)(2 ) w o u ld b e a rec k less assa u lt b y a p erso n o v er 2 0 y ea rs of age , w her e the vi ct i m , unbeknow ns tt o the def endant , i s under 12 y ear s of age. O ne exampl e m i ghtbe w her e a r eckl es s dr i ver s t r i kes a vehi cl e bea r i ng a chi l d occupa nt
. Such a s cena r i o does not appea r t o us t o i m pl i cat e “mor al turpi tude, ” as t hatconce pt has been v iew ed byt he age ncyand deve l oped underour pr ece dent s . T he B I A has obs erved t hat “[s ] i m pl e as s aul t s have gener al l ybeen he l d nott o i nvol ve mora l turpi tude. ” M at t er of O

- -- , 3 I. & N . D e c . 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 (B IA 1 9 4 8 ). It h a s re p e a ted ly opi ned thatt he hal l m ark of a CIM T , i ndeed, is a n act “ac compani ed by a vi ci ous m ot i ve ora corruptm i nd. ” M at t erof Pe r ez - C ont r er as , 2 0 I. & N

. D ec . 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 (B IA 1 9 9 2 ); s ee Mat t erof

Khour n, 2 1 I. & N

. D ec . 1 0 4 1 , 1 0 4 6 (B IA 1 9 9 7 ); Ma tt e r o f Fra n k lin , 20 I

. & N

. D ec. 867, 868 ( B I A 1994); Matter of

F l ores, 1 7 I. & N

. D e c . 2 2 5 , 2 2 7 (B IA 1 9 8 0 ) (“ A n e v il orm al i ci ous i nt enti s s ai d t o be t h e esse n ce of m or al tu rp itu d e .”); Mat t er of

A br eu- Sem i no, 12 I

. & N

. D ec. 775, 777 ( B I A 1968) ( not i ng t hat “mora l turpi tude nor m al l yi nher es i n the in ten t”) ; Mat t erof

P

- --, 2 I. & N

. D ec. 117, 121 ( B I A 1944) ( “O ne of the cr i t er i a adop ted to as cert ai n w hethera part i cul ar c r i m e i n v o l v e s m o r a l tu rp i tu d e i s th a ti tb e a c c o m p a n i e d b y a vi ci ous m ot i ve orcorruptm i n d

. ‘I ti s i n the i nt entthatm or al turpi tude i nher es . ’ ”) ( quot i ng U S ex r el

. Meye rv. D ay, 54 F. 2d 3 3 6 , 3 3 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 3 1 )). C o u rts o f a p p e a ls h a v e f

o llo w e d su it. I n Mi c h e lv . I

NS , the C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it th u s id e n tifie d a “ c o rru p t s ci ent er ” as t he “t ouchs t one of mora l tu rp itu d e .” 2 0 6 F .3 d 2 5 3 , 2 6 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); s ee Chanm ouny v. A sh c ro ft , 3 7 6 F .3 d 8 1 0 , 8 1 4 -1 5 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); Ha mda n v . I NS , 98 F. 3d 183, 186 ( 5th C ir

. 1996)

. A nd, i n P ar t yka , the sta tu te16 req u ir ed that the de fe n d an t k n o w the victi m w as a p o li ce o ff icer. 417 F. 3d at413. Such depr avi t y , h o w ever , i s abs entw hen a defe ndant coul d be convi ct ed forunw i t t i ngl yi nj ur i ng a chi l d— an ac tt hat , i n ourvi ew , r efl ect s a degr ee of m al i ce no gr eat ert han thatexhi bi t ed byan as s ault r eckl es s l ycomm i t t ed a g a in st a n a d u lt. W e norm al l ydefe rt o the age ncyas to w hatconduct co n sti tutes a C IM T

. O u r v iew that rec k less assa u lto f a m ino r, w i t h o u t m o r e , d o e s n o tc o n s t i tu t e a C I M T i s b o l s t e r e d b y a re c e n t d e c is io n o f

th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, M at t erof C r is t oval Si lva- Tre vi no , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec . 6 8 7 , 7 0 6 -70 8 (A

. G

. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e re , the A tto rn e yG e n e ra l co n sid e re d w h e th e r a sta tu te c rim in a li z in g in ten tio n a l se x u a l ac ts d ire c ted a t a c h ild cons t i tut ed a CIM T

. T he s t atut e di d noti ncl ude a mi s t ake- ofage de fens e. H ence , a def endant w ho di d notknow , and had no r eas on t o bel i eve, t hat t he compl ai nantw as a mi norcoul d fac e convi ct i on. T he A t t or neyG ener al concl uded, t her efor e, t hatt he s t atut e l acke d t he “ha l l m ark of m or al turpi tude”— a “r epr ehens i bl e ac tcomm i t t ed w i t h an appre ci abl e l evel of cons ci ous nes s ordel i ber at i on. ” Id

. at 706 ( quot i ng P ar t yka , 417 F. 3d at414)

. Si gni fi cant l y , the A t t orneyG ener al s t at ed, “[W ] hethert he perpetr at orknew ors houl d have know n t he vi ct i m ’ s age i s a cr i t i cal fac t ori n det erm i ni ng w hetherhi s orher c ri m e in v o lv e d m o ra l tu rp itu d e f o r i m m ig ra tio n p u rp o s e s . A f in d in g o f

m o ra l tu rp itu d e u n d e r th e A c t re q u ir e s th a t a p e rp e t r a t o rh a v e c o mmi t t e d t h e r e p r e h e n s i b l e a c twi t h s o me form of s ci ent er . ” Id

. T hus , i n S i lv a - Tr evi no , the A t t orney G ener al t r eat ed the perpetr at or ’ s know l edge r egar di ng t he v ictim ’s a g e a s a c ritica l co n sid e ra tio n in f o rm in g th e d e p ra v ity of the cr i m e. A s w e n o te d above, t he I J her e di d notcons i derW e not e thata B I A d ec isi o n tha tthe governm entur ges 10 s houl d contr ol t he anal y s i s her e i s di s t i ngui s habl e. I n M at t erof Tran , 2 1 I. & N . D e c . 2 9 1 , 2 9 2 , 2 9 4 (B IA 1 9 9 6 ), th e B IA h e ld t hata C al i forni a st atut e i m pos i ng cr i m i nal penal t i es on one w ho

“ w ill f u lly in f lic ts u p o n a n yp e rso n w ith w h o m h e o r sh e is c o h a b i t i n g [ c o rp o r a l i n

j u r y ] , ” c o n s t i tu t e s a CI M T. I d. at 29 2

. In r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, t he B I A under s cor ed the depen dent re latio n sh ip a m o n g f

a m ilym e m b e rs: “ A p e rso n w h o c o h a b its w i t h o r i s the p arentof the off end er’ s chi l d m ain t ai ns a r e l a t i o n s h i p o f

a f a mi l i a l n a tu r e wi t h t h e p e rp e t r a t o r o f t h e h a r m. T hi s r el at i ons hi p i s l i kel y t o be one of trus tand .

. . depende ncy 17 th e c u lp a b ili tyre q u ire d u n d e r su b p a rt 2 7 0 1 ( b )(2 ) b u t m e re ly s t at ed thati tw as an “a ggr avat i ng fa ct or , ” w hi ch conve r t ed s i m pl e as s a u l ti n t o a CI M T, r e l y i n g o n c a s e l a w t h a td i d n ot inv o lve a g e a s a f

ac tor. H o w ev er, o u r co n clus ion that su b p art 2701( b) ( 2) has n o m ent al s t at e r equi r ement , coupl ed w i t h the A t t or neyG en er al ’ s s t at ed vi ew i n Si lva- Tre vi no th a t a defe ndant ’ s know l edge reg ard i ng t he age of hi s vi ct i m m ay p ro p e rly b e a r o n th e d e p ra v ity o f h is c o n d u c t, l e a d s in e x o ra b ly t o t he conc l us i on t hatthe Penns y l vani a cr i m e of w h ic h J eanL o u is w a s c o n v icte d w a s n o t a C IM T

. W h ile w e w o u ld n o rm al l yr emand t o t he age ncyfora “de ci s i on of a mat t erthat s t atut es pl ace pr i m ar i l yi n agenc yhands ”— n amel y , t he determ i nati on of w hethera c rim i nal vi olat i on con st i tutes a C IM T

— th e a g e n c yh a s s p o k e n c lea rlyth a t s ci ent era s to a g e is cr i t i cal t o t he C I M T i nqui r y , and thatthe abs ence of a s ci ent er re q u ir e m e n t is c o n c lu s iv e . See I N S v . V entura , 537 U

. S. 12, 16 (2 0 0 2 ); Ma tter o

f O

--- , 3 I

. & N

. D ec. at194 ( hol di ng t hat sim p le assa u ltd o es n o t con sti tute a C IM T ). 10. . . . V io len c e b e tw e e n th e p a r ti e s o f su c h a re latio n sh ip is di ffe r entfr om t hatbetw een s t r anger s oracqua i nt ance s , w hi ch m ay or m ay not i nvol ve m or al turpi tude, dependi ng o n the n at ur e of the off

ens e as del i neat ed bys t atut e. ” Id

. a t2 9 4

. The C al i forni a s t atut e, how ever , i s r eadi l ydi s t i ngui s habl e fr om the P en n sy lvan ia s im p le a ssau lt statu te. C o n v ict ion u n d er su b p art 2701( b) ( 2) i s pos s i bl e abs entthe s peci al r el at i ons hi p of d ep en d en ce b etw ee n the d ef en d an t and v ict im that the B IA per cei ved as cr i t i cal i n M at t erof Tran

. Un d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, t he ass a ilantand t he co m plai nan t , i nd eed, m aybe st rangers. H e n c e , Ma t t e r of

Tran does notper s uade us t hata convi ct i on u n d e r su b p a rt 2 7 0 1 (b )(2 ) r e f lec ts th e re q u isite d e p ra v ityto c o n s t i tu t e a CI M T.

18 T h e for egoi ng anal y s i s tr acks the modi fi ed ca t egor i cal appr oach thatw e have hi s t or i cal l yappl i ed. U ndert hat appr oach, ouri n q u i ryconcl udes w hen w e det erm i ne w hetherthe l eas t cul pabl e conduct s uffi ci ent t o s us t ai n convi ct i on undert he sta tu te “ f its” w ith in th e re q u ire m e n ts of a C IM T . H o w e v e r, in the re ce n t op inion w e c it ed ab o v e , Ma t t erof C r is t oval

Si lvaTre vi no , t he A t t or ney G ener al s ugges t ed t hat m or e i s r equi r ed. W e as k e d t h e p a r t i e s t o b r i e f t wo r e l a t e d i s s u e s : t h e e f f e c t of Si lva- Tre vi no o n o u r e x istin g m e th o d o lo g y , an d o u r d u tyto f o l l o w Si lva- Tre vi no , n o tw ith stan d ing o u r co n tr ary pr ece dent s . W e conc l ude thatdefe r ence i s notow ed t o Si lvaT rev ino ’s novel appro ac h and thus w i l l appl youres t abl i s hed m e t h o d o l o g y.T he u nus ual ci r cumst ance s of Si lva- Tre vi no ’ s r efe r r al t o, 11 and adj udi cat i on by , t he A t t orney G ener al bearm ent i on. A ft er t he I J det erm i ned t hat Si l va- T r evi no’ s convi ct i on unders ect i on 2

. 1 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f

t h e T e x a s Pe n a l Cod e c o n s t i tu t e d a CI M T, r ender i ng hi m r emovabl e, t he B I A , appl y i ng the ca t egor i cal a p p ro a c h , c o n c lu d e d th a t h is c o n v ictio n d id n o t m e e t th e c riter ia fora C I M T and, acc or di ngl y , vaca t ed t he deci s i on of t he IJ and r emanded t he ca s e. Subse quent l y , w hi l e the cas e w as pendi ng b e f o re th e IJ, th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l ce rtifie d th e c a se to h im se lf su a sp o n te
. D espit e re ques t s bySi l va- T r evi no’ s couns el , the A t t or neyG ener al r efus ed t o i dent i fyt he i s s ues t o be cons i der ed, t o defi ne t he s cope of

hi s r evi ew , t o pr ovi de a br i efi ng s chedul e, o r t o ap p ri se c o u n sel o f th e a p p li ca b le b ri ef ing p roc ed u re. I n fa ct, n eith e r th e IJ d ec isi o n n o r th e A tt o rne yG en era l’ s cert i fi cat ion or derw er e made publ i cl yavai l abl e, t hus deny i ng s t akehol der s , i ncl udi ng i m m i gr antand r efugee a dvocac y organizat i on s, t he o pp ortun i t yt o regi st er theirview s. A s a r es ul t , t he fi r s toppor tuni t yof am i ci cur i ae t o fi l e comm entw as 19 I n Si lva- Tre vi no , as di s cus s ed ear l i er , t he A tt orney G ener al cons i der ed w hetheran al i en’ s convi ct i on fori ndece ncy w i t h a chi l d underT exas l aw cons t i tut ed a CIM T , r ender i ng t he ali en inad m issi b le, an d there fo re in e lig ible fo r discre ti o n ary c a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l , u n d e rs e c t i o n 2 1 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f t h e I NA, 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 18 2(a) (2)

. T he A t t orneyG eneral urged thatbecau se confl i ct i ng m ethodol ogi es had bee n adopt ed bycour t s of a p p e a ls in c o n d u c tin g th e C IM T in q u iry , p ro d u c in g a v e ritab le

“ p a tc h w o r k o f

d if f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s a c r o s s th e n a ti o n ,” h e w o u ld u se th e c ase as “ an o p p o rtu n ityto es tablish a u n ifo rm f r a me wo r k ” f

o ra d j u d i c a t i n g CI M T c a s e s u n d e rth e I NA. Id

. 11after e n tr yo f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’ s o p in io n . See Br

. of A m i ci C ur i ae A m er i can I m m i gr at i on L aw y er s A s s ’ n, Fl or ence Im m i gran t a n d R efug ee R i gh t s Proj ect , Im m i grantD efen se Pr oj ectof the N

. Y

. St at e D efe nder s A s s ’ n, I m m i gr antL egal R es our ce Ct r . , N at ’ l I m m i gr at i on Pr oj ectof the N at ’ l L aw y ers G ui l d, N at ’ l I m m i gr antJ us ti ce C t r . , R efugi o del R i o G r ande, In c ., a n d W a sh in g to n D e f e n d e rs A ss ’n Im m ig ra tio n P rojec t in S u p p o rt o f

R e c o n s id e ra tio n , f

ile d D e c . 5 , 2 0 0 8 , avai l abl e at http://w w w . i m m i grant defe nseproj ect
. org/ do cs/ 08 _S i l vaT revin o A m ic u s B ri e f.p d f

. T he am i cicur i ae br i ef i n s uppor tof r ec o ns i der at i on echoe s m any of t he concerns w e expr es s her ei n and, al t hough no chal l enge t o t hes e pr ocedur es i s befor e us , t he l ack of t r ans par ency , coupl ed w i t h t he abs ence of i nputbyinterest ed s t akehol der s , onl ys erves t o di s s uade us fur t herfr om defe r r i ng t o t he A t t or neyG ener al ’ s novel appr oach. 20 a t 6 8 8 . T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s n o v e l m e th o d o lo g yd e p a rts from ou r pr ecede nts i n tw o si gn i fi cant r espect s. F ir s t, Si lva-Trev i no al t er s the foc us of the ca t egor i cal a n a ly sis . U n d e r th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h th a t w e f o llo w e d in P ar t yka , cons i s t entw i t h Supr eme Court cas e l aw , w e l ook t o the e lem e n ts o f

th e sta tu to ryo f

f e n se to a sc e rta in th e lea st c u lp a b le conducthypot het i cal l ynece s s ary t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on under th e s ta tu te
. P ar t

yka , 417 F. 3d at411. U nderourpr ece dent s , the pos s i bi l i tyo f

c o n v i c t i o n f

o rn o n - tu rp i tu d i nous conduct , how ever re m o te, is s u f

f icie n t to avoi d r emoval ; pr oof of actual appl i cat ion of

t he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on t o t he conduc tas s ert ed i s unn ecessary . “A s a gene ral rul e, a cri m i nal s t atute defi nes a21 cr i m e i nvol vi ng ‘ m or al turp itu d e onl yi f a llo f th e c o n d u c t it pr ohi bi ts i s turpi tudi nous . ’ ” Id

. ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Si lva- Tre vi no es chew s ourappr oach of anal y zi ng the lea st c u lp a b le c o n d u c t h yp o th e tica llysu f f icie n t to su sta in c o n v i c t i o n , i n f

a v o ro f a “ r e a l i s t i c p r o b a b i l i t y ” t e s t
. 2 4 I

. &N. D ec. at697. U nderthi s appr oach, “i n eval uat i ng w hetheran al i en’ s pr i or offe ns e i s cat egor i cal l y one t hat i nvol ved m or al turp itu d e, i m m igrati o n jud g es sh o u ld d eterm ine w h ethe r th ere is a ‘re a listic p ro b a b ili ty , n o t a th e o re tica l p o ss ib ili ty ,’ th a t a St at e orFeder al crim inal s t atut e w oul d be appl i ed t o r eac h conductt hat d o es noti nvol ve mora l turpi tude. ” Id

. at689- 90 ( ci t at ion o m i t t ed)

. T o demonstr at e a “ r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i t y ” of convi ct i on, t he al i en musti dent i fy an actual convi ct i on for c o m p a ra b le c o n d u c t. Si lva- Tre vi no e x p la in e d , [The “ r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i t y ” appr oach] focus es t he adj udi cat oron a cr i m i nal s t atut e’ s actual s cope and appl i cat i on and t ai l or s t he ca t egor i cal m or al turpi tude i nqui r yby as ki ng w hether , at t he t i m e of an al i en’ s r emoval pr ocee di ng, anyactual ( as oppos ed t o hypot het i cal ) cas e exi s t s i n w hi ch the r el evantcr i m i nal s t atut e w as appl ie d t o conduct th a t d id n o t in v o lv e m o ra l tu rp itu d e . If th e sta tu te has notbeen s o appl i ed i n any cas e (i ncl udi ng t he a lien ’s o w n c a se ), th e a d ju d ica to r c a n re a so n a b ly c o n c lu d e th a t all c o n v ictio n s u n d e r th e sta tu te m aycat egor i cal l ybe tr eat ed as ones i n vol vi ng m or al turpi tude. I n s u ch ci r cumst ance s , t he hi s t or yof adj udi cati on gener al l yes t abl i s hes no22 re a listic p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e sta tu te, w h a tev e r its lan g u a g e m a y h yp o th e tica llya llo w , w o u ld actu all ybe appl i ed t o act s t hatdo noti nvol ve m o ra l tu rp itu d e . Id . (i n te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). S e c o n d , Si lva- Tre vi no re n d e rs th e stric t “c a teg o ric a l” appr oach not “ca t egor i cal

. ” Pr i ort o Si lva- Tre vi no , w e depa r t ed fr om a s t r i c t c a t e g o r i c a l a n a l y s i s o n l y whe r e t h e s t a tut e of co n v ict ion fe ature d d isj u n cti v e v ariati o n s, so m e o f w h ich w ere s uffi ci entforconvi ct i on of the fe der al offe ns e and other s of w hi ch w er e not
. “W e depar t fart her fr om the form al cat egor i cal appr oach onl yw her e the l anguage of a par t i cul ar s ubs ect i on [of a s t atute]

. . . i nvi t es i nqui r yi nt o ‘ t he under l y i ng fac t s of the cas e. ” E vans on v . A t t ’

y G en. , 5 5 0 F

. 3 d 2 8 4 , 2 9 1 -92 (3d C ir. 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. I n s uch a c as e, w e modi fi ed t he appr oach, butouri nqui r yr emai ned a l i m i t ed one, focus ed on t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on: w e re v i ew ed onl ythe r ecor d of the c o n v ictio n to a sc e rta in th e p a rticu lar v a ria tio n o f th e sta tu te u n d e r w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t w a s c o n v ic te d

. See Si ngh , 383 F. 3d at 147- 48; Jos eph v. A t t ’ y G en. , 465 F. 3d 123, 127 ( 3d C i r. 2006)

. A ccordi ngl y , t he foc us undert he ca t egor i cal appr oach h a s a lw a y s b e e n th e c o n v ictio n , aim e d a t d e ter m in in g e x a c tly w hatt he def

endantw as convi ct ed of. Si lva- Tre vi no , b yco n tr ast, d ir ec ts a d jud icators to d ep art fr om a ca t egor i cal appr oach, and t o conductan “i ndi vi dual i zed m or al turpi tude i nqui r y , ” i n everyi ns tanc e i n w hi ch a “ca t egor i cal anal y s i s i s not concl us i ve” a s t o w hetherthe al i en w as convi ct ed of a C I M T

. 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at700. T he ai m of23 t hi s “i ndi vi dual i zed” i nqui r yi s t o as cert ai n t he al i en’ s par t i cul ar act s

— t o d eterm ine “w hethert he fa ct s of the al i en’ s pr i or c o n v ictio n in f

a c t in v o lv e d m o ra l tu rp itu d e ”

— n o t m e re lyto det erm ine the el ement s of the s t atut oryoffe ns e of w hi ch the a lie n w a s c o n v ic te d

. Id

. at700, 708. R ather t han l i m i t i ng t he C I M T i nqui r yt o an exa m i nat i on of the form al r ecor d of convi ct i on, w h ich coul d i ncl ude the char gi ng document , t he t erm s of t he pl ea agr eementortr ans cr i pt of the col l oquy b etw een j udge and de fenda nti n w hi ch the f a c tu a l b a s i s f

o rt h e p l e a i s c o n f

i r me d b y t h e d e f

e n d a n t , o rs o me c o m p a ra b le j u d i c ia l r e c o rd o f th is in f o rm a tio n , Sh epa rd , 544 U .S . at 2 6 ; E vans on , 5 5 0 F .3 d a t 2 9 1 , Si lva- Tre vi no abandons t hes e r es t r i ct i ons : “I [A t t orneyG eneral] c oncl ude thatt he evi dent i ary l i m i t at i ons of Tayl orand Shepar d do notappl yfor p u rp o s e s o f

ma k i n g mo r a l tu rp i tu d e d e t e r mi n a t i o n s . ” 2 4 I

. &N. D ec. at 702. H ence , an adj udi cat orm ay , i n hi s orherdi s cr et i on, cons i der not onl y evi dence fr om t he pri orcr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs butal s o “ any addi t i onal evi dence orfac t fi ndi ng t he adj udi cat or det erm i nes i s nece s s aryor appr opr i at e t o r es ol ve ac cur at el ythe m or al turpi tude ques t i on. ” Id

. a t 6 8 7 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Si lvaTre vi no sets n o li m it ati o n s o n the k ind s o f e v iden ce ad jud icators m a yc o n s id e r. T h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l a s s e r t s t h a t t wo a s p e c t s o f t h e I NA s uppor thi s author it y t o di r ectcour t s t o empl oyhi s novel appr oach and compel our defe r ence . Fi r s t , he cont ends t hatt he CI M T p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e i mm i g r a t i o n s t a tu t e a r e a mb i g u o u s . He u r g e s t h a tC o n g r e s s e m p l o ye d c o n f l i c t i n g t e r m i n o l o g y, al t erna tel yu sing “c o n v ict ed o f” an d “c o m m i tt ed” thr oughoutthe s t atut e. I n t he A t t or ney G ener al ’ s vi ew , t hes e t erm s , w hi ch cutA s a gener al rul e, an age ncy ’ s cons t ruct i on of an 12 ambi guous s t atut e underi t s pur vi ew , and i n w hi ch i thas s peci al e x p e rt is e , is e n title d to d e f e re n c e . N

at’ lC ab l e & Telecom m s. A ss’ n v. B randX

Inte rn e tServs. , 545 U

. S. 967, 982 ( 2005) (“ C h ev ro n ’s p re m ise is th a t it i s f o r a g e n c ies , n o t co u rts, to f ill sta tu to ryg a p s.” ); C h e v ro n , U .S .A ., In c . v. N

a tu r a l R e s. D e

f. C ounci l , I nc ., 4 6 7 U .S . 8 3 7 (1 9 8 4 ); Kn a p ik , 384 F. 3d at88. T he I N A del egat es t o t he D epart m ent of Jus t i ce a uthor i t yt o i nt erpr et a n d im p le m e n t its p ro v is io n s . See s e c t i o n 1 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) o f t h e I NA, 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 3 (a )( 1 ). H ow ever , w her e C ongr es s has s po ken cl ear l yon t he p r eci s e i s s ue, no defe r ence i s ow ed t o t he agen cy ’s in te rp re ta tio n o f a s ta tu te
. See Chevr on, 4 6 7 U

. S

. at 8 4 3 n . 9 (“If a court , empl oy i ng t r adi t i onal t ool s o f st atut orycons t ruct i on, as cert ai ns t hatC ongr es s had an i nt ent i on on t he pr eci s e ques t i on at i ssu e, th a t i n tention is th e law an d m u st be g iven ef fe ct. ”); Ch o wdh u r

y v . I NS , 249 F. 3d 970, 973 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( not i ng that d ef ere n ce u n d er C hevr on “ p re su p p o se s so m e a m b ig u ityin the g o v ern ing statu te”); Be l tr a n - T i r a d o v . I NS , 213 F. 3d 1179, 24 i n “di ffe r entdi r ect i on s, ” d o notendor s e a s i ngl e met hodol ogy foradj udi cat i ng C I M T cas es , butr atherconfe rdi s cr et i on on t he A tto rn e yG e n e r a l t o d e f in e a re a s o n a b le a p p ro a c h

. Id

. at693. S e c o n d , t h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l u r g e s t ha t t h e p h r a s e “ c r i me i nvolvi ngm o ra l tu rp itu d e ” in v ites , if n o t re q u ire s, a f a c ti nt ens i ve i n q u i r yas t o w hetherthe under l y i ng conductw as tu rp itu d in o u s . Id

. T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l u rg e s th a t d e f e re n c e is ow ed t o hi s i nt erpr et at i on of thes e pr o v i s i ons , and thatt he m ethod o log ythat h e e sp o u ses is o b li g atory , n o tw ith stan d ing o ur con t rarypreceden t s. 121 1 8 5 & n .1 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); see In re V el azqu ez- Herrer a , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec. 503, 513 ( B

. I

. A

. 2008)

. Fur t her , w her e an a gency i nt erpr et at i on r efl ect s an i m perm i s s i bl e cons t ruct i on of the s t a tu t e , we wi l l n o td e f e rt o th e a g e n c y ’ s v i e w. See C hevr on , 467 U

. S. at843; O keke v. G onz al es , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ) (no ti n g that d ef

ere n ce is o n ly ap p rop ri ate w h ere ag en cy ’s re so lu tio n o f

a m b ig u ityis p re d ica ted o n a “ p e rm iss ib le cons t ruct i on of the s t atut e” ( quot i ng Fa t i n v . I NS , 12 F. 3d 1233, 1 2 3 9 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 3 )))

. In th e c a s e , In re Ve l azqu ez- Herrer a , the B I A expl ai ned the 13 h isto ric a l ro o ts o f

th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h : Fornear l ya ce ntury , t he Feder al ci r cui tcour t s of appe a l s h a v e h e l d th a twhe r e a g r o u n d of depor t abi l i t yi s pr emi s ed on the exi s tence of a “convi ct i on” fora part i cul artype of cr i m e, the focus of the im m i gr at i on author i t i es m us tbe on t he cr i m e of w hi ch the al i en w as convi ct ed, t o t he e x c lu sio n o f

a n yo th e r c rim in a l o r m o ra lly re p re h e n s ib le a c ts h e m a yh a v e c o m m itte d

. See,

25 W e concl ude t hat w e ar e not bound by t he A t t orney G e n e ra l’s v iew b e c a u se it i s b o tto m e d o n a n im p e rm iss ib le r eadi ng of the s t atut e, w hi ch, w e b eli ev e, s peaks w i t h t he r equi s i t e cl ar i t y . T he ambi gui t yt hatt he A t t orneyG ener al per cei ves i n t he I N A i s an ambi gui t yof hi s ow n m aki ng, not g ro u n d e d in th e tex t o f

th e sta tu te, a n d c e rta in lyn o t g ro u n d e d in th e B IA ’s o w n ru lin g s o r th e ju risp ru d e n c e o f c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls g o in g b a c k f

o r o v e r a c e n tu ry . T h e sp e c if ic a m b ig u ityis a s to 13e .g ., D a lto n v . A sh c ro ft , 257 F. 3d 200, 204- 05 ( 2d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ); Go ld e s h t e i n v . I NS , 8 F. 3d 645 , 647 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); Oka b e v . I NS , 671 F. 2d 863, 865 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); T

se u n gC h u v . C o rn e ll , 247 F. 2d 9 2 9 , 9 3 5 (9 th C ir. 1 9 5 7 ); A b lett v . B ro w n e ll , 240 F

. 2 d 6 2 5 , 6 2 7 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1 9 5 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es ex re l. G ig lio v . N

e e lly , 2 0 8 F .2 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 0 -4 1 (7 th C ir

. 1 9 5 3 ); Uni t e d

S ta t e s ex r e l

. Mc Ke n z i e v. Sa v o re tti , 2 0 0 F

. 2 d 5 4 6 , 5 4 8 (5th C ir. 1 9 5 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. R obi ns on v. D ay , 51 F. 2d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 2 -2 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 3 1 ) (H a n d , J.); U ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. M

yl i us v. U

hl , 210 F. 860, 862- 63 (2d C ir

. 1 9 1 4 ). 2 4 I. & N . D e c . at 5 1 3 ; s ee Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 20 3 F. 155, 156 ( D

. C

. N

. Y

. 1913) ( appl y i ng cat egor i cal appr oach a nd rejecti n g ind ividu ali ze d inq u iryinto the ali en ’s pa rt icular a cts). A l t hough w e ar e gene r al l y reluct antt o i nferl egi s l at i ve i nt ent fr om i nact i on, w e fi nd s i gni fi cant t hat C ongr es s has r et ai ned the t erm “convi ct ed” i n t he i nadm issi bi l i t ys ect i on, des pi t e havi ng a me n d e d t h e s t a tu t e o ve r f o r t yt i me s s i n c e 1 9 5 2

. 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 8 2 (histori ca l no tes); see I n re V el azqu ez- Herrer a , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec. at515 ( “[W ] e mustpr es um e thatC ongr es s w as fami l i ar w ith th a t f

a c t (a p p lica b ili tyo f

c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h ) w h e n it m ade de por t abi li ty unders ect i on 237( a) ( 2) ( E ) ( i ) depend on a “convi ct i on. ” H ad C ongr es s w i s hed t o pr ed i c a t e d e p o rt ab i l i t yon an al i en’ s actual conduct , i tw oul d have be en a s i m p le enough m a tter to h a v e d o n e so .”) ( in ter n a l cita tio n s o m itt e d ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l s on , 290 F. 3d 3 47, 356 ( D

. C

. C i r . 2002)

26( “C ongr es s i s pr es um ed t o pr es erve, notabr ogate, t he b ac k g rou n d u n d erstan d ing s ag ains t w h ich it l eg isl ates.”). See, e. g. , M

atter of V el azqu ez- Herrer a , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at 14 5 1 3 ; Mat t erof

B aba isakov , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec . 3 0 6 , 3 1 1 (B IA 2 0 0 7 ); Mat t erof

Sw eet s er , 2 2 I. & N

. D ec . 7 0 9 , 7 1 5 (B IA 1 9 9 9 ); Mat t erof

P i char do , 2 1 I. & N

. D ec . 3 3 0 , 3 3 5 (B IA 1 9 9 6 ); Mat t erof

Madr igal , 2 1 I. & N

. D ec . 3 2 3 , 3 2 7 (19 9 6 ); Ma ttero f Fra n k lin , 2 0 I. & N . D e c . at 8 6 8 -6 9 ; M a tter o f S---- , 2 I. & N

. D e c . 5 5 9 (C .O ., B IA 1 9 4 6 ; A .G . 1 9 4 7 ); M at t erof S-

--- , 2 I. & N . D e c . 3 5 3 , 3 5 7 (B IA , A .G . 1 9 4 5 ); M a tte r o f N

--- - , 1 I. & N . D e c . 1 8 1 (B IA 1 9 4 1 ). See O p. O f H on. C um m i ngs , 39 O p. A t t ’ y G en. 2 1 5 (A G 15 1 9 3 8 ) ; Op

. Of

Ho n . Cu mm i n g s , 3 7 Op. At t ’ yGe n . 2 9 3 ( AG 1 9 3 3 ). I n G onz al es v. D uenas -A lvar ez , u p o n whi c h th e At t o r ney 16 G en e ra l rel i es, t he S up rem e C ou rtun derscored federal cou rt s’ 27 t he us e of the w or d s “convi ct ed” a nd “comm i t t ed. ” The in c lu sio n o f “ c o m m itt e d ,” the A tto rn e y G e n e ra l u rg e s, p e rm its i nqui r yi nt o anyand al l act s

— w hetherornotadmi t t ed bythe al i en, and w hetherornot es tabli s hed bythe r ecor d of convi ct i on— t o det erm i ne w hetherthe pet i t i onerw as convi ct ed of a CIM T

. T o s aythat thi s r eadi ng has been r ej ect ed i s an under s t at ement : t he B IA , pr i orat t orney s gener al , and 1 4 15 n u m ero u s co u rt s o f a p p ea ls ha v e re p ea tedlyh e ld th at th e term “c o n v ict ed ” f

o rec lose s ind ividu ali ze d inq u iry in an ali en ’s sp ec i fi c conduc tand does notperm i texami nat i on of extr ar ecor d evi denc e. I tcoul d notbe cl ear erfr om the t extof the 16u n if o rm a p p lica tio n o f

the categori ca l, an d m o d if ied c a teg o ric a l, a p p ro a c h . 5 4 9 U .S . 1 8 3 , 1 8 5 -8 6 (2 0 0 7 ); M at t erof B abais akov , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec. at31 1 (“W e [B IA ] have als o tr adit i on a lly appl ied an anal y s i s thatcl os el yr es embl es t he ca t egor i cal appr oach t o det erm i ne w hether an al i en has a ‘ convi ct i on’ that f a lls w ith in a f

e d e ra llyd e f

in e d c a teg o ryo f

c rim e s le a d in g to d ep o rt ati o n . ”). A l t hough cour t s empl oydi ffe r entl abel s t o descri be the cat eg o r i c a l a n d mod i f i e d c a t e g o r i c al appr oache s , t he f u n d a m e n tal m e th o d o lo g yis th e sa m e . E a c h c o u rt b e g in s w ith an ana l y s i s of the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on. I f the s t atu te of convi ct i on i s di vi s i bl e, defi ni ng var i at i ons of t he s ame offens e, s om e of w hi ch w oul d consti tut e a CIM T and other s of w hi ch w o u ld n o t, i n q u iryin to th e re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n is p e rm iss ib le s ol el yt o det erm i ne t he par t i cul ar s ubpart under w hi ch t he al i en w a s c o n v icte d

. O th e rw ise , sc ru tin y o f th e a lien ’s p a rticu lar a c ts is p ro h ib ite d

. See, e. g. , P ar t yka , 417 F. 3d at416; B ej ar ano- U

r r ut i a v. G onz al es , 4 1 3 F .3 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 0 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ); C hanm ouny , 376 F. 3d at812; Ca b r a lv . I NS , 15 F. 3d 193 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); Go n z a l ez -Alv a r a d o v . I NS , 3 9 F .3 d 2 4 5 (9 th C ir.1 9 9 4 ); Oka b e v . I

NS , 6 7 1 F .2 d 8 6 3 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es ex r el

. G uar i no v. U hl , 107 F. 2d 399 ( 2d C i r . 1939)

. T he Seventh C i r cui t C our tof A ppeal s al one has r ece nt l yabandone d t h e c a te g o ri c a l a p p ro a c h in m o ra l tu rp itu d e c a s e s . S e e Al i v. Mukas ey , 5 2 1 F

. 3 d 7 3 7 (7th C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). 28 s t atut e––w hi ch def

i nes “convi ct i on” as a “fo rm al j udgm entof gui l t , ” and w hi ch expl i ci t l yl i m i t s the i nqui r yt o t he r ecor d ofT he IN A provides: 17
I n anypr ocee di ng undert his c hapt er , anyof the fol l ow i ng document s orr ecor ds ( or a ce r t i fi ed copyof s uch an offi ci al document or r ecor d) s hal l cons t i tut e pr oof of a cr i m i nal convi ct i on: ( i ) A n offi ci al r ecor d of j udgm entand convi ct i on. ( i i ) A n o ffi ci al r ecor d of pl ea, ver di ct , and s ent ence . ( i i i ) A docketentr yfr om cour tr ecor ds t hat i ndi cat es t he exi s t ence of the convi ct i on. (i v ) O ff ici al m inu tes o f a c o u rt p roc ee d ing o r a tr an script of

a c o u rth ea ri n g in w h ich th e c o u rt t akes not i ce of

the exi s t ence of the convi ct i on. ( v) A n abs t r act of a r ecor d of convi ct i on pr epar ed byt he courti n w hi ch the convi ct i on w as ent er ed, o rb y a S t a t e o f

f i c i a l a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e S t a t e 's r e p o s i t o r yo f

c r i mi n a l j u s t i c e r e c o r d s , th at i ndi cat es t he cha r ge ors ect i on of l aw vi ol at ed, t he di s pos i t i on of the ca s e, the exi s t ence and dat e of convi ct i on, and the s ent ence . ( vi ) A nydocumentorr ecor d pr epa red by , or undert he di r ect i on of, t he cour ti n w hi ch the convi ct i on w as ent er ed thati ndi cat es the exi s t ence of a c onvi ct i on. ( vi i ) A nydocume ntorr ecor d att es t i ng t o t he con v ict ion thati s m ai nt ai ned byan off i ci al of a St at e orFeder al penal ins t i tut i on, w hi ch i s t he

29 convi ct i on orcompar abl e j udi ci al r ecor d evi dence

— t hatthe 17b a s i s f o rt h a ti n s t i tu t i o n ' s a u t h o r i t yt o a s s u me cus t odyof the i ndi vi dual named i n t he r ecor d. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(3 )(B ); s ee Cont eh v. G onz al es , 461 F. 3d 45, 54 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “[T] he r egul at i on’ s cat ch- al l pr ovi s i on author i zes t he admi s s i on of evi dence forthe s o le purpos e of p r o v i n g “ t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a c r i mi n a l c o n v i c t i o n , ” 8 C. F

. R. § 1003. 41( d) ( emphasi s s uppl i ed); i tdoes notauthor i ze the a d m iss io n o f

e v id e n c e f

o r th e p u rp o se o f

p ro v in g th e f

a c ts u n d erly ing the o ff

en se o f c o n v ict ion

. ”). See D uenas -A lvar ez , 549 U

. S. at 185- 86 ( “I n det erm i ni ng 18 w hethera convi ct i on (sa y , a c o n v ictio n f o r v io latin g a sta te cr i m i nal l aw t hatforbi ds the t aki ng of pr oper t yw i t hout perm i s s i on) fal l s w i t hi n t he s cope of a l ist ed o f f ense ( e. g. , “theft off ense”), t he l ow er court s u n ifo rm ly have appl i ed the appr oach t hi s C our t s etfor t h i n Tayl orv. U ni t ed Stat es , 495 U

. S. 575, 110 30 C I M T det erm ination f

ocus es on the cr i m e of w hi ch the al i en w as convi ct ed

— nott he s peci fi c a c ts that the al i en mayhave com m i t t ed

. 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 48) ( A )

. T he s t atut e pr es ent s no a m b ig u ity. T w o re c e n t o p in io n s o f th e S e c o n d a n d N in th C irc u it C our t s of A ppeal s but t r es s t hi s concl us i on— G er t s ens ht eyn v . U

. S. D ept
. of

Jus t i ce , 544 F. 3d 137 ( 2d C i r . 2008) and T o ka tly v . A sh c ro ft , 37 1 F

. 3d 61 3, 62 2 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). A l t ho ug h these opi ni ons addr es s “convi ct ed” i n the cont extof di ffe r entr emoval pr ovi s i ons , C o n gr es s has pr es cr i bed a s i ngl e def i ni t i on of

“ c o n v ic te d ,” a p p lic a b le to a ll re m o v a b le o f f e n s e s . See 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(1 ) a n d (4 8 )( A ) ( d e f in in g “ c o n v ict ion ”). 18S .C t. 21 4 3 , 1 0 9 L .E d .2 d 6 0 7 (1 9 9 0 )).” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee als o C ho w du ry , 2 4 9 F

. 3 d a t 9 7 3 ( “ Wh e n a n a l y z i n g a s t a tu t e we

. . . m ak[e ] everyeff

or tnott o i nt erpr et a pr ovi s i on i n a manner that ren d ers o ther pro v isi o n s o f th e sam e st atute inc o n sist en t. ’” ( quot i ng Bo is e Cas c a d e Cor p . v . EPA , 9 4 2 F .2 d 1 4 2 7 , 1 4 3 2 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ))); T

o ka tly , 371 F. 3d at622; U ni t ed States v. P achec o , 225 F. 3d 148, 154 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng U ni t ed S ta tes v . B o n a n n o O rg a n ize d C rim e Fa m ily , 879 F. 2d 20, 24 ( 2d C i r . 1989) ) (“ [W ]e m us t‘ i nt erpr et[a] s peci fi c pr ovi s i on i n a w ayt hat r ender s i t cons i s t ent w i t h t he t enorand s t ructur e of the w hol e ac t or s t atut or ys cheme of w hi ch i ti s a part
. ’ ”) ( i nt ernal cit ati o n s o m itted). 31 A c c o rd in g ly , w e f

in d th e re a so n in g in th e se c a se s a p p lica b le to t he C I M T pr ovi s i ons of the s t atut e. I n T o ka tly v. A sh c ro

ft , th e N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls concl u d e d t h a ta p r o v i s i o n a u t h o r i z i n g r e mov a l o f a n a l i en convi ct ed of a cr i m e of dom es t i c vi ol ence r equi r ed appl i cat i on of a c at egor i cal , or m odi fi ed cat egor i cal , appr oach. 371 F. 3d at 6 2 2

. T h e C o u rt str esse d that this res u lt flo w ed fro m C o n g ress’s i ncl us i on of t he w or d “convi ct ed, ” a cl ear and unambi guous t e r m: L i ke all of the o ther rem ova lprovis i on s w e have anal y zed i n accordance w i t h t he ca t egor i cal and m odi fi edc a t e g o r i c a l ap p r o a c h , th e plai n l anguage of the “c r i m e of domest i c vi ol ence ” pr ovi s i on cl ear l ybas es deport ab il i t yon the natur e of the al i en’s convi ct i on , ra th er tha n o n the a li en ’s32 a c t u a lc o n d u ct
. W e ar e r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hether T okat l y has been “ convi ct ed of a c r i m e of dom es t i c vi ol ence ”- notw h et herhe i n f act com m i t t ed su c h a c rim e . IN A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 ) ( E )(i) ( emphasi s added)

. T hat t he r emovabl e offe ns e at i s s ue i s a “c r i m e of dom es t i c vi ol ence ” i n no w ay w arr ant s a r ever s al of our fundament al m ethod of det erm i ni ng w hether an al i en has been c onvi ct ed o f a re m o v a b le o f

f e n se u n d e r th e A c t. Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s has concl uded, si m i l arl y , t hat “conv i ct ed” m and at es a cat ego ri cal analy si s. G er t s ens ht eyn , 544 F. 3d at145- 46. I n G er t s ens ht eyn , the c o u rt cons i der ed the val i di tyof a nove l fr amew ork, a d o p t ed bythe B I A , for a d

j udi cat i ng “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” convi ct i ons under 8 U. S. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( K) ( i i )

. 5 4 4 F. 3 d a t1 3 8

. Th e BI A had s peci fi ca l l ys oughtgr eat erl eew ayt o exami ne the part i cul ar c o n d u c t u n d e rly in g a n a lien ’s p rio r c o n v ictio n . A s o rig in a lly enac t ed i n A pr i l 1996, § 1101( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i i ) define d as an a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n yth e c o m m iss io n o f “ a n o f f e n se th a t . . . is des cr i bed in” anyone of thr ee f eder al s t atut orypr ovi s i ons [18 U

. S. C

. §§ 2421, 2422, and 2423] ‘ forco m m erci al advant age. ’ ” D epart i ng fr om t he ca t egor i cal and modi fi ed cat egor i c a l ap p r o a c h e s , th e B I A s crut i ni zed e vi dence out s i de the re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n to a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e a lien w a s, in f a c t, m o ti v ated b ya d esi re “f o r co m m erc ial ad v an tage
. ” T h e c o u rt concl uded thats uch an appr oach w as for ecl os ed byt he s t atut e, w h ich re qui r ed “c onvi ct i on” of a n aggr avat ed fe l ony . T he r el evantpas s age i n G er t s ens ht eyn i s w or t h quot i ng atl ength:33 O u r h o ld in g to d a yis g ro u n d e d in hi st or y - s peci fi cal l y , the hi s t oryof w hyw e have appl i ed the ca t egor i cal appr oach t o aggr avat ed fel onyi nqui r i es i n t he r emoval cont ex t
. T he p r i m a r y r e a s o n w a s t h a t 8 U. S

. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i )

- t he pr ovi s i on of the I N A t hat r ender s an al i en r emovabl e forhavi ng been c o n v icte d o f

a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y(le a v in g to pr ovi s i on 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) t he def i ni t i on of

“ a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y ” )- u s e s th e w o rd “ c o n v ic te d .” T hati s , the I N A pr emi s es r emovab i l i t ynoton w h a t an a lien h a s d o n e , o r m a yh a v e d o n e , o r is lik e lyto d o in th e f

u tu re (te m p tin g a s it m a yb e to cons i dert hos e fa ct or s ) , but on w hat he ors he has b e e n f o r m a l l y convi ct ed

o f in a c o u rt o f

la w . . . . O n e w ayt o ens ur e pr operfocus on the convi ct i on, w e dec i ded, w as t he met hod t he Sup rem e C our tappl i ed i n T aylor and Sh epa rd

. S e e Mi n g L a m Sui v . I

NS , 250 F. 3d 105, 116- 17 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( s t at i ng t hat“the T ay l or opi ni on pr ovi des val uabl e gui dance ” t o a det erm i nat i on of w h etheran al i en’ s offe ns e cons t i tut es an “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” undert he I N A beca us e, l i ke the stat u t e at i s s ue i n Tayl o r , “ § 1 227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) r ender s deport abl e an a l i en w ho has been ‘ convi ct ed ’ o f an a ggr avat ed fel ony , notone w ho has ‘ com m i t t ed’ an aggr avat ed fe l ony ”)

. W e al s o r eas oned ( 1) that

“ n o t h i n g i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y [o f 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii)] su g g e ste d a f a c tf in d in g ro le34 fort he B I A i n as cer t ai ni ng w hetheran al i en had c o m m itte d a n a g g ra v a ted f e lo n y , jus t as , in Tayl or , n o t h i n g s u g g e s t e d s u c h a r o l e f o rt he s ent enci ng courti n eval uat i ng the fa ctual bas i s of a pr i orbur gl aryconvi ct ion, ” and ( 2) that“the pr act i cal evi dent i arydi ffi cul t i es and pot ent i al unfai r nes s as s oci at ed w i t h l ooki ng behi nd [an a lien’s ] offense o f con vict i on w ere no l ess daunt i ng i n t he i m m i gr at i on [cont ext ] t han i n t he sen tenc ing co n text. ” Dulal

- W hi t ew ay , 501 F. 3d at 125- 26 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n s um , ourus e o f the ca t egor i cal appr oach e m anat es fr om ourunder s t andi n g of w hatC ongr es s i nt ended w hen i tdr aft ed § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , a pr ovi s i on that , l i ke the p r ovi s i on i n Tayl orand Sh epa rd , r e q u i r e s t he G overnm entt o pr ove t he exi s t ence of a qual i fy i ng convi ct i on i n or dert o m ake i t s cas e. Id

. at 14 5 -46 (e m p h asis in o ri g inal). A lth o u g h the C o u rt cons t rued “c onvi ct i on” i n t he cont extof t he aggr avat ed fe l ony p rov isi o n , the C o u rtm ad e c le ar tha t i ts r ejec ti o n o f th e B IA ’s fac t
- i nt ens i ve i nqu ir yw as pr emi s ed on “c onvi ct i on”— a s t a tu t o r i l yd e f

i n e d t e r m— not on t he par t i cul ar offe ns e forw hi ch re m o v a l w a s s o u g h t:

In th e p rec ed en ti al op inion that the B IA i s s ued i n t hi s cas e, i thas t aken a new appr oach. Bu ti th a s d o n e s o notb yr e i n t e rp r e t i n g 8 U. S

. C. § 1227( a) ( 2 )(A )(i ii ), the p rov isi o n w h o se w o rdi ng led it-an d u s-to a d o p t th e c a teg o ric a l a p p ro a c h inB eca us e “c onvi ct ed” ha s an unambi guous m ea n ing, t he 19 A t t or ney G ener al m us t fi nd s uppor t for hi s novel ap p r oach el s ew her e i n t he s tat u te
. T he A t t orneyG ener al at t empt s t o do j us tt hat , ci t i ng 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) , s ect i on 35 t he fi r s tpl ace . R ather , i t has focus ed ent i r el yon a sub par tof § 1101( a) ( 43) , the pr ovi s i on of the IN A t hatdefi nes “aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” The B IA h a s a u th o rityto in terp re t th a t p ro v is io n , an d its i nt erpr et at i on- s peci fi cal l y , i t s s ens i bl e r eadi ng of th e p h ra se “ c o m m e rc ial a d v a n tag e ” -m a yw e ll m e rit d e f e re n c e sh o u ld th e B IA re a ss e rt it i n th is ca s e (on rem an d ) or in o thers. B u t th e B IA ’s di s cus s i o n o f § 1101(a ) ( 43) ( K ) ( i i ) gi ves us no re a so n to d e p a rt f

ro m its, an d o u r o w n , p re c e d e n ts r egar di ng t he more fundament al ques t i on of w hat is re q u ire d o f th e a g e n c y -in th e in ter e sts o f b o th f a i r n e s s a n d e ff

i c i e n c y - w h e n a n a l i e n 's r em o v ab i l i t yhi nges on t he exi s t ence of a pr i or convi ct i on . Id . at 1 4 6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); C ont eh , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 5 4 ; C hang v. I NS , 307 F. 3d 1185 , 1 190 & n. 2 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t hat t erm “convi ct i on” ne ce ssar i l yl i m i t s i nqui r yt o t he el ement s of the s tatu te of

co n v ict ion an d the re c o rd o f c o n v ict ion ); In re V e la z q u ez -He r r e r a , 2 4 I

. & N

. D ec. at513 ( not i ng t hat “convi ct ed” r equi r es t he “focus ” of the i m m i gr at i on author i t i es t o be on t he “cr i m e of w hich t he al i en w a s convi ct ed , t o t he excl us i on of any ot hercr i m i nal orm or al l yr epr ehens i bl e ac t s he m ayhave com m i t t ed

. ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). 192 1 2 (a )(2 )(A )(i)(I) . H o w e v e r, th a t se c tio n , ad d re ss in g a c ts s peci fi cal l y“adm it te d” byt he al i en i n the under l y i ng cr i m i nal proceed i ng , is narr ow l ydraw n; i tdo es n o t con fer l i m i t l ess di s cr et i on on i m m i gr at ion j udges t o exami ne “a nyaddi t i onal evi dence ” dee m ed “a ppr opr i at e. ” Si lva- Tre vi no , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. a t 6 8 7 ; s ee C o n n e c ti c u t N a t’l B a n k v . G e rm a in , 503 U

. S. 249, 2 5 3 -5 4 (1 9 9 2 ) (“ [ C ]o u rts m u st p re su m e th a t a leg isla tu re sa y s in a s t a t u t e w h a ti tm e a n s a n d m e a n s i n a s t a tu t e w h a ti ts a ys th e re .”); In re Ve l azqu ez- Herrer a , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at 5 0 7 (“If t hat[s t atut or y ] l anguage cons t i tut es a pl ai n expr es s i on of c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t, it m u st b e g iv e n e f f e c t.”); see al

so C ont eh , 461 F. 3d at58 ( “I ts eem s o b v ious t o us thatthe r ecor d of c o n v ictio n c a n n o t e n c o m p a ss a f ter -th e -f a c t sta tem e n ts m a d e in a s epar at e and s ubs equen t p r ocee di ng. ”)

. T he A t t orney G ener al ’ s r el i ance on s ect i on 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) (i )(I ) as s uppor tfor a fa r - r eac hi ng i nqui r yi nt o an al i en’ s sp eci fi c ac t s i s t hus m i s pl ace d. 36 W e al s o t ake i s s ue w i t h t he A t t orneyG ener al ’ s vi ew that t he phr as e “c r i m e i nvolvi ng m o ra l tu rp itu d e ” in v ites in q u iryin to a n a lien ’s s p e c if

ic a c ts. T h e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s a rg u m e n t is pr emi s ed on a fundam ent al m i s r eadi ng of t he r el evantl anguage . T he A t t or neyG ener al vi ew s “cr i m e” a nd “i nvolving m or al tu rp i tu d e ” a s d i s t i n c tg r a m m a t i c a l u n i t s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y, r eas ons t hatt he cl aus e “i nvol v ing m or al turpi tude” modi fi es “cr i m e. ” H e thus concl udes t hat C ongr es s i nt ended t o author i ze i nqui r y i nt o w hether an al i en com m i t t ed t he off ens e i n a manner re f lec tin g d e p ra v ity

— th a t is w h e th e r th e a lien ’s p a rticu lar a c ts
“ i n v o l v [ e d ] mo r a l tu rp i tu d e . ” T h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l ’ s v i e w, how ever , over l ooks a cruci al fac t : cr i m e i nvol v ing m or alI n U ni t ed Stat es v. U

hl , d ec ided alm o st on e h u n d red y ea rs 20 a g o , the c o u rt a c k n o w led g e d th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e sta tu te w oul d be both over i ncl us i ve and under i ncl us i ve, butnot ed that t he i nt er es t i n admi ni s t r at i ve effi ci ency j us t i fi ed t hi s r es ul t
. 203 F . 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 1 3 ). See M at t erof P i char do , 2 1 I. & N

. D e c . a t 3 3 5 (“ A s th is 21 B oar d and the court s have c ons i s t ent l yhel d i n cas es addr es s i ng t he i ssu e o f w hetheran al i en i s deport abl e unders ect i on 2 4 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i ) o f

t h e Ac tf o r h a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i me 37 tu rp itu d e is a ter m o f a rt, p re d a tin g e v e n th e im m ig ra tio n sta tu te its e lf

. See Jor dan v. D e G eor ge , 3 4 1 U

. S

. 2 2 3 , 2 2 7 (19 5 1 ); B axt erv. Mohr , 37 M i s c. 833, 76 N

. Y

. S. 982 ( 1902)

. A s s uch, i t s di vi s i on i nt o a noun and s ubor di nat e cl aus e, as t he A t t orney G e n e ra l se e k s to d o , d ist o r ts it s in ten d e d m e a n in g . It ref e rs to a sp e c if ic c las s o f

o f f e n se s, n o t to a ll co n d u c t th a t h a p p e n s to
“ in v o lv e ” m o ra l d e p ra v ity , b e c a u se o f a n a lien ’s sp e c if ic a c ts in a p a rticu lar c a se . B e c a u se th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l’s p o s it io n is p r e m i s e d o n a c l e a r l ye r r o n e o u s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f “ c r i me i n v o l v i n g mo r a l tu rp i tu d e , ” n o d e f e r e n c e i s o we d t o h i s v i e w. M or eover , alt h o u g h the A tt o rne y G ener al obs erves

– corr ect l y–t hat“mora l turpi tude” i s r ar el yan el ement of the un d e rly i ng cri m e t ri gg eri ng rem ov al , i ti s the o ffen se 20 t h a tm u s tb e s c ru t i n i z e d f o rth e r e q u i s i t e d e g r e e o f d e p r a v i t y. B eca us e the I N A r equi r es the convi ct i on of a c r i me

— notthe comm i s s ion of

an act

— i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, the ce ntr al in q u iryis w h e th e r m o ra l d e p ra v ityin h e re s in th e c rim e o r its el ement s –not t he al i en’ s under l y i ng conduct

. I n thi s w ay , t he 21i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tu d e, it is t he natur e of the cr i m e, as defi ned bys t atut e and i nt erpr et ed byt he co ur t s and as l i m i t ed and des cr i bed byt he r eco r d of convi ct i on, w hi ch det erm i nes w h e th e r a n a lie n f

a lls w ith in th e re a c h o f

th a t la w .” ). 38 c o n c e p t o f

a c rim e in v o lv in g m o ra l tu rp itu d e d o e s n o t len d itse lf t o an exami nat i on of act s , r ather t han el ement s of the cr i m e, any m or e than does t he concept of “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” unders ect i on 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( F ) o f

th e IN A

. See 18 U

. S. C. § 1 10 1( a ) ( 43 ) ( F) ( defi ni ng “aggr avat ed fe l ony ” as i ncl udi ng a “ cri m e of vi ol ence ”)

. V i ol ence , l i ke mora l turpi tude, i s notan el ementof t he under l y i ng offe ns e; r ather , w e m us t l ook atthe el ement s of t he cr im e an d m eas ur e them agai ns tt he r equi r ementof “vi ol ence . ” See N

g v. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 3 6 F

. 3 d 3 9 2 , 3 9 6 -97 (3d C ir

. 2006) ( appl y i ng cat egor i cal appr oach t o det erm i nat i on of w hetherconvi cti o n cons t i tut es a “c r i m e of vi ol ence ” under se c tio n 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(F )); see al so Sh epa rd , 544 U

. S. at14 (lim itin g c o g n iza b le e v id e n c e to re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n in d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n w a s f o r“ v i o l e n tf

e l o n y” u n d e r th e A rm e d C a re e r C rim in a l A c t); T o ka tly , 371 F. 3d at622 (“ T h a t th e re m o v a b le o f f e n se a t is su e is a “ c rim e o f d o m e stic vi ol ence ” i n no w ayw arr ant s a r ever s al of ourfundament al m ethod of det erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en has been convi ct ed of a re m o v ab le of

fe n se u n d er the A ct. ”). T h e u se o f th e term “inv o lv e s ” in “ crim e inv o lving m o ral tu rpitu d e” is no m o re e x p a n s iv e th a n th e w o rd “ o f ” in “ c ri m e o f

v io le n c e .” N o r do w e b eli ev e th a t, as a p rac ti ca l m att er, det erm i nat i on of w hethera convi ct i on “fi t s ” t he r equi r ement s of a C IM T re q u ire s e x a m in a tio n o f a n a lien ’s u n d e rly in g c o n d u c t.39 W e a re a w a re th a t th e S e v e n th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re c e n tly r eac hed a c ont r aryconcl us i on i n A l i v. Mukas ey , upon w hi ch the A t t or ney G ener al r el i es i n Si lva- Tre vi no . 5 2 1 F

. 3 d at 7 4 1 -42

. In A li , t he S eventh C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s concl uded, “The need t o deci de w hether a cr i m e i s one of ‘ m or al turpi tude’

. . . m ay req u ir e so m e a d d it ion al i n fo rm ati o n , sinc e the ch arg ing p ap ers t hatl ed t o t he pr i or co n v ict i on ar e notfr amed w i t h s uch cl as s i fi cat i ons i n m ind

. . . . ” Id . B e c a u se th e S e v e n th C irc u it rep rese n ts th e so le co u rto f a p p ea ls t o ap p rov e s u ch a farr eac hi ng i nqui r yi n t he C I M T cont ext , w e cons i deri t s ho ldi ng a n d re a so n in g in so m e d e tail. I n A li , th e c o u rt in iti a llya c k n o w led g e d its p re c e d e n ts appl y i ng t he ca t egor i cal appr oach s etfor t h i n Sh epa rd and Tayl or . Id

. at741; s ee H as his h v. G onz al es , 442 F. 3d 572, 575 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); P adi l l a v. G onz al es , 3 9 7 F .3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 1 9 (7 th C i r. 20 05 ). T he court , ho w ever, t hen aban do ne d these pr ece dent s , pr ovi di ng t hr ee gr ounds fori t s deci s i on: that ( 1) the r at i onal e forappl i cat i on of t he cat egor i cal appr oach i n cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs i s i nappl i cabl e i n the i m m igrati on cont ext ; ( 2) s crut i nyof an a l i en’ s s peci fi c ac t s i s n ec essaryt o det erm i ne w h ethe r a p ri o r c o n v ict ion fit s the crit eria o f a C IM T ; and (3) a rec en t dec isi o n o f th e B IA p erm it s ex am ination o f e x tr a-rec o rd e v id e n c e in c o n d u c tin g th e C IM T in q u ir y , s ee M a tterof B abais a kov , 24 I

. & N

. D ec. at311. N one of thes e r eas ons w i t h s t a n d s s c ru t i n y. Fi r s t , t he c o u rt rea s ons t hatt he tw i n r at i onal es fort he cat egor i cal appr oach a r t i cul at ed i n Tayl or

— s i m pl i ci t yof app li cat i on and cons ervat i on of j udi ci al r es our ces

— do not

“ c o m e i n to p la y ” in th e im m ig ra tio n c o n te x t. A li , 5 2 1 F. 3 d at40 741. W e r es pect ful l yd i s agr ee. A dm i ni s t r at i ve ef fi ci encyand eas e of a ppl i cat i on ar e equal l y , i f notm or e, i m por t anti n t he im m ig r a t io n c o n te x t th a n in c ri m in a l p ro c e e d in g s . See G er t s ens ht eyn , 544 F. 3d at146 ( not i ng t hat“the pr act i cal e v id e n tiary dif

f icu lti e s a n d p o ten tial u n f a irn e ss a ss o c iate d w ith l oo king beh i nd [an a l i en’s] off ense of con v iction w ere no l ess daunt i ng i n t he i m m i gr at i on [con text] than i n t he s ent enci ng c o n tex t”) . A s th e N in th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls, a c irc u it exp eri enced w i t h m anag i ng crow ded i m m i grat i on do ckets , rec en tl yex p lai n ed , “If w e w ere to al low ev iden ce that is no t part o f th e re c o rd o f

c o n v ictio n a s p ro o f

o f w h e th e r a n a lien f

a lls w ith in th e re a c h o f

[ a n IN A re m o v a l p ro v isio n ], w e e ss e n tially w oul d be i nvit ing t he part i es t o pr es entanyand al l evi dence b e a ri n g o n a n a lie n ’s c o n d u c t le a d in g to th e c o n v ic tio n . . . . Such an ende avori s i ncons i s t ent
. . . w i t h the s t r eaml i ned a d ju d ic a tio n th a t a d e p o rt a tio n h e a ri n g is in te n d e d to p ro v id e .” T o ka tly , 371 F. 3d at621 ( quot i ng M at t erof P i char do , 2 1 I

. & N. D ec. at 335)

. Y et , t he “i nvi t at i on” thatT o ka tly striv e s to a v o id i s ext ended t o t he part i es i n A li : “[W ] e now concl ude t hatw hen deci di ng how t o cl as s i fyconvi ct i ons u n dercr i t er i a thatgo bey ond t he cr i m i nal char ge- s uch as .

. . w hether t he cr i m e i s one of ‘ m or al turpi tude, ’ t he agencyhas t he di s cr et i on t o cons i der evi dence bey ond t he cha r gi ng paper s and j udgm entof convi ct i on. ” A li , 5 2 1 F .3 d a t 7 4 3

. A lis et s no l i m it at i on on the e v id e n c e a d m iss ib le to e sta b lish a n a lien ’s u n d e rly in g c o n d u c t. A lid ism iss e s th e a d m in istra tiv e im p lica tio n s o f its gr ound- br eaki ng appr oach, r eas oni ng thati m m i gr at i on j udges m aydevot e as m uch, oras l i t t l e, t i m e t o exami nat i on of an a lie n ’s s p e c if

ic c o n d u c t a s th e ys e e f it. Id

. at 74 1

. T h e c o u rt re a so n s th a t w h e th e r a n in d iv id u a lize d in q u iryw o u ld b e u n d u ly41 b u rd e n so m e is a n iss u e f o r th e a g e n c y , n o t t h e ju d icia ry , to deci de: “A nd how m uch t i m e the age ncyw ant s t o devot e t o the r es ol ut i on of part i cul ari s s ues i s , w e s houl d s uppos e, a ques t i on for t he agency i t s el f ra t her t han t he j udi ci ary . ” Id

. W e nee d not w ei gh the respe ct i ve cos t s and bene fi t s of a f act
- i nt ens i ve ap p roa ch , o r div ine th e a g en cy ’s view o n the m att er, as the B IA has al r eady s poken cl ear l y and unequi vocal l y . I f A li r efe r s the

“ q u e s tio n ” to th e B IA , id

. , t he agenc y has pr evi ous l yans w er ed it: I f w e w er e t o m ake a n exce pt i on her e and a c c e p t th e re sp o n d e n t’s tes tim o n ya s p ro o f o f h is depor t abi l i t y . . . t her e w oul d be no cl ears t oppi ng po intw her e thi s B oar d coul d l i m i tthe s cope of s eemi ngl ydi s pos i t ive butextr i ns i c evi dence b e a ri n g o n th e re s p o n d e n t’ s d e p o rt a b ility. W e bel i eve thatt he harm t o t he s y s t em i nduced byt he cons i derat i on of s uch extr i ns i c evi dence far o u tw e ig h s t h e b e n e f

icia l ef f e c t o f a llo w in g it t o form t he evi dent i arybas i s o f a fi ndi ng of d e p o rt a b ility. Mat t erof

P i char do , 21 I

. & N

. D ec. at 335- 36 ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itted). N o tw ith sta n d in g th e a g e n c y ’s p rio r re jec tio n o f

a f a c ti nt ens i ve i nqui r y , t he courti n A lir eas ons thats uch an appr oach i s nece s s aryt o det erm i ne w hethera pr i orconvi ct i on s at i s fi es t he cr i t er i a of a C I M T , s i nce “m or al turpi tude” i s r ar el yan el ement of th e s t a tu t e o f

c o n v i c t i o n . But , th i s p r o b l e m of “ fi t ”— t he vi r tual l yi n e v i t ab l e i n c o ngrui t ybetw een the s t atut e of c onvi ct i on42 and the el ement s of a C I M T

— i s notof r ece ntvi nt age. W r i t i ng n e a rly a c e n tu ry a g o , Ju d g e N o y e s id e n tifie d th is a s a n in e v itab le bypr oductof the ca t egor i cal appr oach: I t i s t ru e t h a t
. . . s o me a l i e n s who h a v e been conv ict ed of hi gh cr i m es m aybe exc l uded al t hough t hei rpart i cul aract s evi dence no i m m or al i t yand thats om e w ho have be en co n v i c t e d o f

s l i g h to f

f e n s e s ma yb e a d mi t t ed al t hough t he fa ct s s urr oundi ng t hei rcomm i s s i on m ay be s uch as t o i ndi cat e mora l obl i qui t y . B ut s uch r es ul t s al w ay s fol l ow t he us e of f ixed s t andar ds and s uch s t andar ds ar e, i n m yopi ni on, nece s s aryfort he ef

fi ci entadmi ni s t r at i on of the i m m i grat i on l aw s. U hl , 203 F. at 153. I n t he i nt erveni ng one hundr ed y ear s s i nce U hlw as deci ded, adj udi cat or s have appli ed the ca t egor i cal a p p ro a c h to th e C IM T in q u ir yw ith o u t g re a t d if f ic u lty. See a l

so In re Ve l azqu ez- Herrer a , 2 4 I. & N . D e c . a t 5 1 3

. A lif a ils to i dent i f y a s i g n i f

i cant devel opm ent –l egal , pol i cy , or o th e rw is e

–

ju s tif y in g d e p a rt u re f

ro m o u r h is to ri c a p p ro a c h

. E ven i f w e w er e i ncl i ned t o fi nd, as di d t he courti n A li , t hat an i nd i vidual i zed inqu i ry w o uld enab l e m ore preci se d e ter m in a tio n s re g a rd in g re m o v a l, an d th a t th is b e n e f it out w ei ghed the a dm i ni s t r at i ve bur den cr eat ed, w e bel i eve our di s cr et i on t o adopts uch an appr oach t o be for ecl os ed byt he i m m i gr at i on s t atut e i t s el f, w hi ch pr ed icat es r emoval on convi ct ed

conduct , and w hi ch, w e concl ude, expr es s l yl i m i t s our i nqui r yt o t h e o f

f i c i a l r e c o r d o f

j u d g me n ta n d c o n v i c t i o n , or43 o t h e rc o mp a r a b l e j u d i c i a l r e c o r d e v i d e n c e . 8 U. S

. C. § § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(3 )(B ), 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 8 )(A ); s ee Cont eh , 461 F. 3d at54; cf

. C hevr on , 467 U

. S. at842- 43. L as t l y , t he Seventh C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s r eas ons t hat a re c e n t o p in io n o f t h e B IA , M at t erof B abais akov, w a rra n ts a b a n d o n in g its p re c e d e n ts ap p ly in g th e c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h to C IM T c a s e s . 2 4 I. & N . D e c . a t 3 1 1

. B abais akov , how ever , does nots uppor tt he fa r - r eac hi ng i nqui r y t hat t he courtadopt s i n A li. T her e, t he B I A exami ned evi dence out si de the r ecor d of conv ict i on fort he narr ow purpos e of de t erm i ni ng w hethert he m o n e t a r yt h r e s h o l d f

o rr e m o v a l u n d e rs e c t i o n 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( M) w as m et
. Sect i on 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) author i zes r emoval of an a l i en w h o is c o n v icte d o f a n o f f e n se th a t “ in v o lv e s f

ra u d o r d e c e it i n w hich the loss t o the v ictim or vi ct i m s exc eeds $10, 000 .” ( emphasi s added)

. I n appr ovi ng r es or tt o r el i abl e evi dence o u tsid e th e re c o rd o f

c o n v ic ti o n to d e ter m in e th e lo ss a m o u n t, t he B I A s t r es s ed tha ta ca t egor i cal appr oach w oul d be unw or kabl e, as t her e i s no fede r al o r s t at e fr aud s t atut e that cont ai ns an el ementr equi r i ng l os s t o the vi ct i m s exce edi ng $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

. Id

. a t 3 1 5

. S h o rt ly af

ter M at t erof B abais akov wa s d e c i d e d , we adopt ed a pos i t i on s i m i l art o t hatof the B I A and, eschew i ng a ca tego ri ca l app roa ch , h eld th at sec ti o n 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M )’s m onet aryr equi r ementdi d notr equi r e j urydet erm i nat i on of the amount of vi ct i m l os s i n the under l y i ng cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng. Ni j haw an v. A t t ’

y G en. , 5 2 3 F

. 3 d 3 8 7 , 3 9 1 -92 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ). W e r eas oned , as t he B I A di d i n M at t erof B abais akov , tha t a co n tr aryappr oach, r equi r i ng a l os s amount t o have be en a sc e rta in e d b yth e ju ryin th e p rio r c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g , w o u ldI n S il va -T revi no , the A t t orneyG ener al pos i t s a s er i es of 22 pol i cyar gum ent s t o j us t i fyabandoni ng t he ca t egor i cal appr oach— t hatan i ndividu al i zed i nqui r yw oul d m i ni m i ze the i m p a c to f

d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t a t e c r i m i n a l c o d e s o n C I MT adj udi cat i on, and r emedythe curr entfr actur ed appr oach t o t he C I M T i s s u e , i n whi c h c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s a p p l yd i f

f e r ent m et ho d o l o g i e s . Th e s e p o l i c yb e n e f i t s a r e l a r g e l yb e s i d e the poi nt
. C ongr es s has s p o k en cl ear l yand unambi guous l yand, there fo re, th e a g en cy is n o t free to d isr eg ard C o n g ress’s j udgm ent , m er el ybeca use i tbel i eves thati thas fas hi oned a b e tte r a lte rn a tiv e , o r t h a t C o n g re s s ’s a p p ro a c h is ill- a d v is e d

. See C hevr on , 4 6 7 U .S . at 8 4 2 -4 3 ; In re Ve l azqu ez- Herrer a , 2 4 I. & N

. D ec . at 51 4 (“T h e p ri n cipa l difficu ltyw ith the D H S ’s 44 e ss e n tiallyg u t th is b a sis f o r re m o v a l an d “ im p o s e a to tally i m pr act i cal s t andar d. ” Id

. T he pr act ical im p ed im en t s t o appl i cat i on of t he cat egori cal appr oach i dent i fi ed i n Ni j haw an and B abais akov , how ever , are n otpr es enti n t he C I M T cont ext
. T he B I A and cour t s of appe al s have de t erm i ned w hetherm or al turpi tude i nher es i n t he convi ct ed conduc tus i ng a ca tegor i cal appr oach f o r o v e r a c e n tu ry. H e n c e , Ni j haw an and Ba b a is akov do not s u p p o rt a b a n d o n in g o u r e s ta b lis h e d m e th o d o lo g y . B e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t A li m isun d erstan d s the im p o rt of B abais akov , vi ol at es cl ear s t atut ory l anguage r equi r i ng pr oof of ac tual convi ct i on, and i gnor es t he B I A ’ s pr onouncementt hat a fa ct
- i nt ens i ve i nqui r y w oul d be undul ybur dens om e, w e do not f e e l co m p e lled to f

o llo w it. 22p o s itio n is th a t w e s im p ly h a v e n o a u th o ri ty to c o n s id e r . . . pol i cym at t er s exce ptas t heym ay b earon t he pr oper interpre tat ion o f a n o therw ise am b igu o u s statute. ”). 45 T he otheras pectof Si lva- Tre vi no

— r equi r i ng pr oof of a “r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i t y ” thatt he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on w oul d be appl i ed t o non- turpi tudi nous condu ct

— i s al s o w r ong- heade d. T hi s conce ptor i gi nat ed i n D uenas -A lvar ez , 549 U

. S. at185- 86. T her e, t he Supr eme C our t cons i der ed w hetherconvi ct i on under a C al i forni a s t atut e, i m pos i ng cr i m i nal penal t i es notonl yon one w ho t akes a vehi cl e w i t houtcons entbutal s o on one w ho i s an acc es s or yoracc om pl i ce t o s uch an una uthor ized t aki ng, c o n s t i t u t e s a “ t h e f

t o ff e n s e ” u n d e r t h e 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(G ), an d is th u s re m o v a b le. T h e a lien u rg e d th a t, as a r es ul to f C al i forni a court s ’ appl i cat i on of the “na tur al and p ro b a b le c o n se q u e n c e s” d o c trin e , the C a lifo rn ia s tatu te cr i m i nal i zed c onductthati s not“thef t” and thus does not w arr ant r emoval

. R ej ect i ng t he al i en’ s vi ew of the s t atut e, the Supr eme C our tr eas oned thats t at es r out i nel y puni s h conductof a n a c c o m p lice to th e f

t as “ th e f t,” a n d sta ted : “[ I]n o u r v iew , to f in d th a t a s tate sta tu te c re a tes a c rim e o u tsid e th e g e n e ric d ef init ion o f a lis te d crim e in a fe d era l st atute re q u ir es m o re than the a p p li ca ti o n o f leg al i m ag ination to a s tat e statute’s l a n g u a g e . I tr e q u i r e s a r e a l i s t i c p r o b a b i l i t y , n o ta t h e o r et i cal pos s i bi l i t y , t hatt he St at e w oul d appl yi t s s t atut e t o conductt hat fal l s o u tsi d e the gene r i c def i ni t i on of a c r i m e. ” Id

. at193. C oncl udi ng t hatt he al i en had mer el yar t i cul at ed a theor et i cal pos s i bi l i t yt hatthe C ali forni a s t atut e w oul d appl yw her e the d e f e n d a n t d id n o t in ten d to c o m m it th e c rim e s re su lti n g f ro m h isSee U ni t ed Stat es v. G r is el , 4 8 8 F

. 3 d 8 4 4 , 8 5 0 (9th C ir

. 23 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c ) (“ W h e re , as h e re , a s ta te sta tu te e x p licitly defi nes a cr i m e more br oadl ythan the gene r i c de fi ni t i on, no 46 a c ts, th e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e sta tu te “ f it ” th e g e n e ric defi ni t i on of a “ t heftoffe ns e. ” C ur i ous ly , t he phr as e “r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i t y ” has been i m por t ed i nt o t he C I M T cont ext , w i t h s ever al cour t s r eas oni ng t hat an a lien m ayavo i d rem ov al on l yi f he d em on strat es a “r eal i s t i c pr obabi l i t y ” thatnon- turpi tu di nous conduct w oul d, i ndeed, be pr os ecut ed as a cr i m e underthe part i cul ars t atut e at is s u e . See, e. g. , Ni canor - R om er o v. Mukas ey , 523 F

. 3 d 992, 1 0 0 5 -1 0 0 6 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B ece r r i l

- Lopez , 528 F .3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 4 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); M ar t i nezv. Mukas ey , 551 F. 3d 1 1 3 , 1 1 9 n .6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ); U nited S tates v. D i az-I

ba rra , 522 F .3 d 3 4 3 , 3 4 8 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e se rio u slyd o u b t th a t th e lo g ic of the Supr eme C our ti n D uenas -A lvar ez , h o w e v e r, is t r ans fer abl e t o t he C IM T cont ext
. I n D uenas -A lvar ez , t he h yp o t h e t i c a l c o n d u c ta s s e r t e d b y t h e a l i e n w a s n o tc l e a r l y a v io latio n o f

C a lifo rn ia la w . In f

a c t, t h e p a rties v ig o ro u sly di s put ed w hetherC al i forni a court s w oul d perm i tappl i cat i on of t he st atute t o a d efen dan tw ho had c o m m itt e d acts r es ul t i ngin a c r i me , b u t whe r e t h e c o mmi s s i o n o f t h e c r i me i t s e l f was not i nt ended. H er e, bycontr as t , no appl i cat i o n o f “l egal im a g in a tio n ” to th e P e n n sy lv a n ia s im p le a ss a u lt statu te is nece s s ary . T he el ement s of 2701 ar e cl ear , and t he abi l i t y of the g o v ern m en t t o p rose cu te a d ef en d an t un d er su b p art 2701( b) ( 2)

— ev en w her e the def endanti s unaw ar e of the vi ct im ’s a g e— i s notdi s put ed. W i t h al l due r es pectt o our 23“l egal i m agi nat i on, ” D u en a s -A lvar ez , 1 2 7 S .C t. at 8 2 2 , is r e q u ire d to h o ld th a t a r e a listic p ro b a b ili tye x ists th a t th e sta te w ill a p p ly it s sta tu te to c o n d u c t th a t f a lls o u tsid e th e g e n e ric d e f in iti o n o f

th e c rim e . T h e sta te s tatu te’ s g re a ter b re a d th is e v id e n t f ro m its tex t.”); B ece r r i l

- Lopez , 528 F. 3d at1141.

47 sis ter c o u rts o f

a p p e a ls w h o h a v e im p o se d th is a d d iti o n a l ste p in l i ghtof D uenas -A lvar ez , w e vi ew the s itu at i on her e as s uffi ci ent l ydi ffe r entfr om t hatof D uenas -A lvarezt o rai se s e ri o u s d o u b ts a s to its a p p lic a b ility. O th e r c o n s id e ra tio n s s u p p o rt o u r re f u sa l to im p o rt a
“ re a listic p ro b a b ili ty ” tes t in to th e C IM T c o n tex t. A s th e N in th C i r cui tC our tof A ppeal s expl ai ned i n Ni can or-Ro m ero , “[ T ]h is cour tand other s have devel oped a s ubs t ant i al bodyof ca s e l aw deci di n g w hethervar i ous s t at e cr i m i nal s t atut es fal l w i t hi n t he sco p e of t he ‘ cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude’ offe ns e. ” 523 F

. 3 d a t 1 0 0 4

. T h i s j u r i s p ru d e n c e h a s p r o v i d e d p r e d i c t a b i l i t y, enabl i ng al i ens bet t ert o under s t and t he i m m i gr at i on c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

a p a rt ic u la r c o n v ic tio n . S e e id

. D uen asA lvar ezdid not purportt o al t er our and o t her cou rt s of ap peals ’ c a se law regar ding t he ex am i nati on of the l eastculpable cr i m i nal conduct i n r es ol vi ng the C I M T i s s ue. As th e e n banc courti n Ni can or-Ro m ero not ed, t he i s s ue i s notw hether p o ten tial o f

f e n d e rs h a v e b e e n p ro s e c u ted ; ra th e r, th e iss u e is w h e th e r e v e ry o n e p ro se c u ted u n d e r th a t s tatu te h a s n e c e ss a rily c o m m itte d a C IM T . 5 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 2

. A l s o unans w er ed i s w hether t he governm ent orthe al i en bear s t he bur den of de m ons t r at i ng a pr i orappl icat i on of the48 s t atut e of c onvi ct i on t o n o n -t urpi tudi nous conduct , and the a p p lic a b ility o f

u n re p o rt e d c rim in a l c a s e s . Id

. Al t h o u g h th e I NA al l ocat es t he burde n of es t abl i s hi ng r emovabi l i tyt o the g o v e rn m e n t, s ee N

otas h v. G onz al es , 4 2 7 F .3 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 7 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), D uen as-Alvarez appea r s t o sh i ftt hi s bur den t o the al i en, i nd i cat i ng t hat h e m ust“show t hat the st atute w as so appl i ed i n hi s ow n cas e” orpoi ntt o “othercases in w hi ch the s t at e court s i n fac tdi d appl yt he st atute i n the s peci al (n o n g e n e ric ) m a n n e r f

o r w h ich h e a rg u e s.” 5 4 9 U .S . at 1 9 4 ; s ee Ni can or-Ro m ero , 5 2 3 F

. 3 d at 10 0 4

. T h ese u n reso lved q u est i ons s t ren g then ourconcl us i on t hatt he Supr eme C our tnever i nt ended a s ea- change i n ourcas e l aw r egar di ng t he m ethodol ogy fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran al i en has been c o n v i c t e d o f

a CI M T. B as ed on the for egoi ng anal y s i s , w e w i l l not defe r t o the me t h o d o l o g ya d o p t e d b yth e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l , whi c h we c o n c l u d e i s p r e d i c a t e d o n a n i mp e r mi s s i b l e r e a d i n g o f th e I NA, i s c o n t r a r y t o C o n g r e s s ’ s i n t e n t , a n d w o u l d o v e r t u r n n e a r l y a centu ry of j ur i s prudence

. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l fol l ow our es t abl i s hed m ethodol ogy for adj udi cat i ng cr i m es i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude, as s etfor t h i n P ar t yka , and concl ude thatJ eanLo u i s was n o tc o n v i c t e d o f a CI M T. I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l G R A N T t he pet i t i on, R E V E R SE t he or derof t he B I A , and R E M A N D t he ca s e t o the B I A forfurt herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th t hi s O pi ni on.