Opinion ID: 2748693
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e., from intentional to reckless conduct,

Text: more serious resulting harm is required in order to find that the crime involves moral turpitude. Moreover, where no conscious behavior is required, there can be no finding of moral turpitude, regardless of the resulting harm. 747 F.3d at 783 (quoting In re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 242 (BIA 2007)). LEAL V. HOLDER 11 In reviewing the crime at issue here, we are satisfied that the BIA reasonably interpreted the INA to hold that felony endangerment in Arizona is a CIMT, and we accordingly defer to the BIA’s decision under Chevron. Although the crime requires only reckless conduct, the level of harm resulting from the conduct is grave: a substantial, actual risk of imminent death to another person. We agree with the BIA’s determination that the creation of a substantial, actual risk of imminent death is sufficiently reprehensible, or in terms of our case law “base, vile, and depraved,” to establish a CIMT, even though no actual harm need occur. As our colleagues on the Third Circuit explained, a petitioner’s “good fortune in not . . . killing anyone does not change the quality of his actions.” Knapik v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 84, 90 n.5 (3d Cir. 2004). While the BIA’s opinion may be somewhat disjointed in appearing to analyze the mens rea and actus reus as separate prongs of its CIMT determination, a careful review of the opinion makes clear the BIA evaluated the applicable mens rea in the context of the resulting harm at issue. Thus, although the BIA’s decision came prior to Ceron and did not cite Solon, the BIA’s analysis properly considered the mens rea and actus reus in combination, and we reject Leal’s contrary argument. As previously noted, Leal argues that because recklessness in Arizona can be predicated upon voluntary intoxication to the point of being unaware of the risk created by one’s conduct, reckless crimes in Arizona cannot categorically satisfy the necessary mens rea for a CIMT. We disagree. We have previously explained that certain crimes requiring reckless conduct have been found to be CIMTs based in part on the general requirement of “actual 12 LEAL V. HOLDER knowledge of a factor indicating risk of harm and conscious disregard it.” Uppal v. Holder, 605 F.3d 712, 718 (9th Cir. 2010). Based on this definition of recklessness, which mirrors the first part of Arizona’s definition, we noted that other circuits had specifically found certain endangerment crimes to be CIMTs. Id. (citing Keungne v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 561 F.3d 1281, 1286–87 (11th Cir. 2009); Knapik, 384 F.3d at 90 n.5); see also Idy v. Holder, 674 F.3d 111, 118–19 (1st Cir. 2012) (deferring to the BIA’s determination that New Hampshire’s reckless conduct statute is a CIMT because “the statute contains both ‘reprehensible conduct’ and ‘some degree of scienter’”). Our explanation of recklessness in Uppal applies not only to recklessness born of knowledge or a risk of harm and conscious disregard of that risk, but also to recklessness based on voluntary intoxication. Under Arizona’s definition of recklessness, whether the risk created by an actor’s conduct results from conscious disregard of the risk or unawareness of the risk due to voluntary intoxication, the quality of the risk created is the same: it must be that which “constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-105(9)(c) (2006). As noted by the BIA, the drafters of the Model Penal Code, in similarly defining recklessness to include unawareness of risk based on voluntary intoxication, explained that awareness of the potential consequences of excessive drinking on the capacity of human beings to gauge the risks incident to their conduct is by now so dispersed in our culture that it is not unfair to postulate a general equivalence between the risks created by the LEAL V. HOLDER 13 conduct of the drunken actor and the risks created by his conduct in becoming drunk. Model Penal Code § 2.08 cmt. at 359 (1985). Further, we agree with the drafters’ observation—based on the common knowledge that there are degrees of intoxication, rather than just two states of either intoxicated or sober—that there is a “relative rarity of cases where intoxication really does engender unawareness as distinguished from imprudence.” Id. Thus, where an actor is only mildly intoxicated, his actions may appear negligibly different from those of a sober actor, as the person who has been drinking may still be able to appreciate the risk involved and choose subsequently to disregard it. This is true even though his intoxication may have lessened to some degree his inhibitions and, so, his appreciation of the risk. In the rare circumstance where an actor is so excessively, voluntarily intoxicated as to be entirely unable to appreciate a risk that represents a gross deviation from the conduct of a reasonable person, the actor’s conscious decision to become so excessively intoxicated— thus consciously disregarding the well-known risk that he will be impaired to the extent that he cannot consciously understand the risk of his intoxicated conduct—may properly serve as a proxy for conscious disregard of the risk itself. Accordingly, we hold that the BIA reasonably determined that such excessive voluntary intoxication combined with the conduct at issue—creation of a substantial, actual risk of imminent death of another person—constitutes morally turpitudinous conduct. We find Leal’s other arguments to also be without merit. First, Leal argues that recklessness can only serve as a predicate mens rea for a CIMT where there is an “aggravating factor.” Leal’s argument is based on a line of cases 14 LEAL V. HOLDER discussing various forms of aggravated assaults in the context of the CIMT analysis, explaining that there must be “‘some aggravating dimension’ sufficient to increase the culpability of an assault or battery and so to transform the offense into one categorically a CIMT.” Uppal, 605 F.3d at 717. However, this is not due to the reckless mens rea involved, but rather because of the underlying conduct; both this court and the BIA have repeatedly stated that simple assault is, in general, not a CIMT. See, e.g., Nunez, 594 F.3d at 1137; Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 244. It thus follows that, in order for an assault to be considered a CIMT, there must be some additional factor involved in the specific offense to distinguish it from generic simple assault. Endangerment crimes in Arizona, however, are distinct crimes, rather than a form of assault. State v. Morgan, 625 P.2d 951, 956 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981) (explaining that endangerment is not a lesserincluded offense of aggravated assault based on the distinct elements required for each crime, namely that endangerment requires actual risk). Further, as explained above, the relevant analysis for a CIMT is measuring the resulting harm with the applicable mens rea, which felony endangerment satisfies. Finally, Leal argues that felony endangerment encompasses conduct for which the resulting harm is insufficient to qualify as a CIMT. Pointing to his own case, Leal relies on his plea colloquy4 for the contention that his conduct “equates to simple driving under the influence,” and thus is not morally turpitudinous. However, regardless of Leal’s interpretation of the factual basis for his conviction in 4 We note that Leal’s plea colloquy is not part of the administrative record and thus was not considered below by the IJ or the BIA. We reference it here only to establish the basis of Leal’s argument. LEAL V. HOLDER 15 his plea colloquy, the simple fact remains that in pleading guilty to felony endangerment, Leal necessarily admitted to the elements of the crime, including the creation of a substantial, actual risk of imminent death to another person.5 Leal’s reliance on other cases fails for this reason as well: whether the conduct at issue appears at first glance to be morally turpitudinous, the fact remains that a jury must unanimously find at trial or the defendant must admit to a plea that the conduct created a substantial, actual risk of imminent death to another person. For this reason, we are satisfied that there is not a realistic possibility that felony endangerment will be applied to non-turpitudinous conduct.