Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1628214.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_immigration
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 23:29:53
Document Index: 148441461

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 212', '§ 240', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 16', '§ 150', '§ 110', '§ 110', '§ 70', '§ 3559', '§ 16', '§ 150', '§ 150', '§ 150', '§ 16', '§ 150', '§ 16', '§ 150', '§ 2']

Before CHIN and DRONEY, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.* Cesar Manuel Gomez Santana, pro se, MacClenny, Florida. Holly M. Smith, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsels, Office of Immigration Litigation, Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, District of Columbia, for Respondent.
Petitioner Cesar Manuel Gomez Santana was convicted in state court of attempted arson in the second degree in violation of New York law. In this case—a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an Immigration Judge finding Santana removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal—e question is whether attempted arson in the second degree is a “crime of violence” and therefore an “aggravated felony.” We hold that it is, and, accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review.
The INA provides that “any alien convicted of ․ a crime involving moral turpitude ․ or an attempt. to commit such a crime” is inadmissible to the United States. INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). The Attorney General may cancel removal of an inadmissible alien in certain circumstances if the alien “has not been convicted of an aggravated felony.” Id. § 240A(a).
INA § 101(a)(43)(F) defines an “aggravated felony” to include “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18 ․ ) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year.” An attempt to commit a “crime of violence” is also an “aggravated felony.” Id. § 101(a)(43)(U).
We use a “categorical approach” to determine whether an offense is a “crime of violence” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16. Vargas–Sarmiento, 448 F.3d at 166 (citation omitted). We “focus[ ] on the intrinsic nature of the offense․ [T]he singular circumstances of an individual petitioner's crimes should not be considered, and only the minimum criminal conduct necessary to sustain a conviction under a given statute is relevant.” Dalton, 257 F.3d at 204 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under NYPL § 150.15, the elements of arson in the second degree are: (1) the defendant starts a fire, (2) with intent to damage a building; (3) he damages the building, (4) while another person is present in the building; and (5) he knows or should know that the presence of such a person in the building is a reasonable possibility. Payne v. Jones, 638 F.Supp. 669, 673 (E.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 812 F.2d 712 (2d Cir.1987) (unpublished order).1 NYPL § 110.00 criminalizes attempts to commit a crime.
Attempted arson in the second degree is a class C felony, see N.Y. Penal Law §§ 110.05, 150.15, punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than one year but not more than fifteen years, see id. § 70.00. “An offense is classified by federal law as a felony if ‘the maximum term of imprisonment authorized’ is more than one year.” Blake, 481 F.3d at 160 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)).
The parties agree that only subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 16 is at issue in this case. As there is no dispute that attempted arson in the second degree is a felony, the question before the Court is whether the offense, by its nature, involves a substantial risk of the intentional use of physical force against the person or property of another. See Blake, 481 F.3d at 156; Vargas–Sarmiento, 448 F.3d at 160–70.
While we have not previously considered this issue, other circuits, considering other state laws, have held that arson is a “crime of violence.” See, e.g., United States v. Velez–Alderete, 569 F.3d 541, 546 (5th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (Texas law); Mbea v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 276, 280 (4th Cir.2007) (District of Columbia law); United States v. Velasquez–Reyes, 427 F.3d 1227, 1231 (9th Cir.2005) (Washington law); United States v. Schwartz, 235 F. App'x 914, 916–17 (3d Cir.2007) (unpublished decision) (Pennsylvania law); United States v. Adams, 51 F. App'x 507, 508 (6th Cir.2002) (unpublished decision) (Kentucky law). We reach a similar conclusion in this case with respect to the New York statute.
Second, attempted arson in the second degree involves the intentional use of fire. A person is guilty of arson in the second degree when he “intentionally damages a building or motor vehicle by starting a fire.” N.Y. Penal Law § 150.15 (emphasis added). The intentional use of physical force requires “active employment” of the force, Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 9, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), and there can be no doubt that starting a fire with the intent to damage a building involves the “active employment” of fire in committing the offense.
Third, attempted arson in the second degree involves a substantial risk that fire may be used against the person or property of another. NYPL § 150.15 requires that, at the time the defendant started a fire with the intent to damage a building, a person other than a participant in the crime was present in the building, and that the defendant knew or should have known that fact. See N.Y. Penal Law § 150.15; Payne, 638 F.Supp. at 673. Thus, the offense will always involve a substantial risk that fire may be used against another, i.e., the person other than the defendant who is in the building at the time of the fire. The fact that the other person is not actually injured is irrelevant, as § 16(b) “covers offenses that naturally involve a person acting in disregard of the risk that physical force might be used against another in committing an offense[;] ․ physical force need not actually be applied.” Leocal, 543 U.S. at 10–11.
Santana argues that NYPL § 150.15 does not necessarily involve the use of fire against the “property of another,” as arson in the second degree may be committed by a person setting fire to property he owns himself. See Shepherd v. People, 19 N.Y. 537, 542 (1859); People v. Rosen, 251 A.D. 584, 297 N.Y.S. 877, 880 (3d Dep't 1937). Damage to property of another, however, is not required for purposes of § 16(b). Because NYPL § 150.15 always requires the presence of someone in the building, that presence creates a substantial risk in every case that physical force may be used against another. That the building is owned by the defendant does not alleviate the danger that fire will injure the persons inside or spread to nearby buildings. See, e.g., Salim v. Reno, No. CIV. A.2000–CV–4603, 2000 WL 33115910, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Jan.16, 2001) (unpublished decision) (“It matters little whether the property set ablaze belongs to the arsonist or another. Fires spread, endangering not only the arsonist's direct target but also nearby persons and property,” as well as firefighters and emergency workers.); In re Palacios–Pinera, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 437 (starting fire always involves risk that fire will spread beyond originally intended property to another that may be occupied by other persons).
Arson has been characterized in other contexts as involving “purposeful, violent, and aggressive conduct.” Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122, 128, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009) (quoting Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 144–45, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Sentencing Guidelines enumerates arson as a “crime of violence” warranting enhanced penalties. See U .S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual §§ 2L1.2(b)(1) cmt. n. 1(B)(iii), 4B1 .2(a)(2) (2012). Fire is a powerful weapon—easy to wield, capable of overwhelming destruction, and difficult if not impossible to control. It would defy common sense to characterize arson as anything but a violent crime.