T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

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

### Jan u ary29,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT GI L M AR NI L T ON S E RV AL O Z A N O , Pet i t i oner , N o. 05- 9607 v. ( B . I . A . N o. A 73 122 651) A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t or ney G e n e ra l, R e sp o n d e n t. ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e K E L L Y , M c K A Y , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e or der ed su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. P e tit io n e r, a P e ru v ian n a tiv e , w a s g ra n ted a sy lu m in th e U n ited S tate s in Ju n e 1 9 9 5 a n d su b se q u e n tlyg ra n ted law f u l p e rm a n e n t re sid e n c ysta tu s in F e b ru a ry1 9 9 6 . H o w e v e r, fo llo w in g h is p lea o f g u iltyto b a ttery w ith in ten t toB eca us e the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s aff i r m ed w i thoutopi ni on, t he 1 im m ig ra tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n is th e fin a l a g e n c yd e c is io n . 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .1 (e )( 4 )( ii) .

- 2- comm i ta s er i ous fel onyi n I daho s t at e courti n O ct ober2004— a cr i m e forw hi ch Pet i t i onerr ece i ved a thr ee- y earpr i s on s ent ence , l ar gel ys us pended— the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyi ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs . A n i m m i gr at i on j udge found Pet i t i oner ’ s offe ns e cons t i tut ed an “ aggr avat ed fe l ony ” underthe Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (“ IN A ” ) a n d th a t h e th e re fo re w a s re m o v a b le u n d e r I N A § 2 3 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( iii) . See 8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( “A nyal i en w h o is c o n v icte d o f

a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n ya t an ytim e a f ter a d m iss io n is depor t abl e. ”) . Pet i t i oner ’ s appea l t o the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s w as d is m is s e d , a n d P e titio n e r n o w s e e k s re v ie w b e fo re th is c o u rt .

1 Pet i t i onerchal l enges bot h hi s s t at e courtconvi ct i on and the i m m i gr at i on j udge’ s concl us i on t hathi s convi ct i on cons t i tut ed an a ggr avat ed fe l ony . T o the ext entt hatPet i t i oneras s ert s t hathe i nadvert ent l ypl eade d gui l tybeca us e he w as l ed t o bel i eve i tw oul d m ake pr i s on t i m e l es s l i kel y , s uch cl ai m s “ar e bey ond t he s cope of t hes e pr ocee di ngs . ” Vargas v. D ep’ tof Hom eland Sec. , 451 F. 3d 1105, 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Tre nch v. I. N. S. , 783 F. 2d 181, 183 ( 10th C i r . 1986) ( “[P] et i t i onercannotcol l at er al l yatt ack the l egi t i m acyof hi s s t at e cr i m i nal c o n v ic tio n s in th e d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s .” ). W e c an , h o w ev er, r ev iew P eti ti o n er’s ass erti o n that the o ffen se o f b att eryS ect i on 12 52 (a) (2) (C ) s t at es: 2 N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyot herpr ovi s i on of l aw . . . , and exc eptas p ro v id e d in su b p a ra g ra p h (D ), n o c o u rt sh a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to re v iew a n yfin a l o rd e r o f re m o v a l ag a in st a n a lien w h o is re m o v a b le b yre a so n o f

h a v in g c o m m itt e d a c rim in a l o ffe n se c o v e re d in se c tio n 1 1 8 2 (a )(2 ) o r 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(iii), (B ), (C ), o r (D ) o f th is tit le, o r a n yo ffe n se c o v e re d b yse c tio n 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(A )(ii) o f th is tit le fo r w h ich b o th p re d ica te o ffe n se s a re , w ith o u t re g a rd to th e ir d ate o f c o m m issi o n , o therw ise co v ere d b ysec ti o n 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(I ) of thi s t i t l e. S ect i on 12 52 (a) (2) (D ) r eads: 3 N ot hi ng i n s ubpar agr aph ( B ) or( C ) , ori n anyotherpr ovi s i on of t hi s chapt er( ot hert han thi s s ect i on) w hi ch l i m i t s orel i m i nat es j udi ci al r evi ew , s hal l be cons trued as pr ecl udi ng r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw r ai s ed upon a pe t i t i on for re v iew filed w ith a n a p p ro p ria te c o u rt o f a p p e a ls in a c c o rd a n c e w ith t hi s s ect i on.

- 3- w i t h i nt entt o comm i ta s er i ous fel onyi s notan aggr avat ed fe l ony . R es pondent c o n te n d s th a t th is c o u rt la c k s ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is a p p e a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( C ) . T hi s ar gum enti gnor es t he addi t i on of s ubpar agr aph ( D ) byt he 2 R E A L I D A ctof 2005, w hi ch “ove rr i des s ubpar agr aph ( C ) s o thatw e ca n r evi ew

‘ cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw ’ r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a r emoval or der , even i n an aggr avat ed- fel onycas e. ” Vargas , 451 F. 3d at1107 ( quot i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) ) . A ccor di ngl y , w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew 3 th is lim ite d c h a lle n g e . T he def i ni t i on of “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” undert he I N A i ncl udes “a c r i m e of vi ol ence ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 16 of Ti t l e 18, butnoti ncl udi ng a pur el ypol i t i cal o ffe n s e ) fo r w h ic h th e te rm o f im p ri s o n m e n t [ is ] a t le a s t o n e y e a r.” 8 U .S .C . §- 4-

11 01 (a) (43)( F ). “C ri m e of v i olence” i s i n turn d efi ned as: ( a) an offens e thathas as an el ementthe us e, att empt ed us e, or t hr eat ened us e of phy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on orpr opertyof another , or ( b) anyot heroffe ns e thati s a fe l onyand that , byi t s natur e, i nvol ves a s ubs t ant i al r i s k thatphy s i cal for ce a gai ns tthe per s on or pr opert yof anotherm aybe us ed i n the cour s e of c om m i t t i ng the offe ns e. 18 U . S. C . § 16. I n det erm i ni ng w hetherbat t eryw i th i nt entt o comm i ta s er i ous fel onyi s a cr i m e of vi ol ence , w e empl oythe “c at egor i cal appr oach” r e c o m m e n d e d b y Tayl orv. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 (1 9 9 0 ), an d e x ten d e d to convi ct i ons r es ul t i ng fr om pl eas i n Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13, 26 ( 2005) . U ndert hi s appr oach, ourdeci s i on i s gui ded by“the gene r i c el ement s of t he offens e and not[by ] t he part i cul arfac t s of the cr i m e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - C andej as , 3 4 7 F .3 d 8 5 3 , 8 5 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). I daho C ode § 18- 911 defi nes bat t eryw i th the i nt entt o comm i ta s er i ous fel onyas “[a ] nybat t erycomm i t t ed w i th the i nt entt o comm i tm ur der , r ape, the i nfamous cr i m e aga i ns tnatur e, m ayhem, r obberyorl ew d and l as ci vi ous conduct w i t h a mi norchi l d. ” B at t ery , i n tur n, i s defi ned underI daho C ode § 18- 903 as a n y: ( a) W i l l ful and unl aw ful us e of for ce orvi ol ence upon t he per s on of another ; or ( b) A ctual , i nt ent i onal and unl aw ful t ouchi ng ors tr i ki ng of another per s on agai ns tt he w i l l of the other ; or- 5-

( c) U nl aw ful l yand i nt ent i onal l ycaus i ng bodi l yharm t o an in d iv id u a l. G i ven thes e def

i ni t i ons , i ti s appar entthatbat t eryw i th i nt entt o comm i ta s er i ous fel ony , puni s habl e as a fe l onyoffe ns e underI daho l aw , qual i fi es as a “c r i m e of v i o l e n c e ” a n d t h e r e fo r e a s a n “ a g g r a v a t e d fe l o n y ” u n d e rth e I NA. A ccordi ng l y , t he d eci si on of the i m m i grat i on j ud ge is AFF I RM ED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge