Opinion ID: 3164685
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Owns, operates, or conducts a chop shop;

Text: [. . .] upon conviction, is guilty of a felony . . . . 2 Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 4–107(a) provides, in relevant part: Any person . . . who shall destroy, remove, cover, alter or deface, or cause to be destroyed, removed, covered, altered or defaced, the engine number or other distinguishing number of any vehicle in this state . . . shall be deemed guilty of a felony . . . . 3 Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 4–103 provides, in relevant part: A person not entitled to the possession of a vehicle . . . who receives, possesses, conceals, sells, or disposes of it, knowing the vehicle . . . to be stolen or converted under circumstances constituting a crime, shall be guilty of a felony. 4 Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1713(A) provides, in relevant part: Every person who buys or receives, in any manner, upon any (continued...) 3 In January 2013, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) filed a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) charging that Mr. Obregon was removable for having committed a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). 5 At his immigration hearing, Mr. Obregon admitted the factual allegations, but denied that he was removable because, he claimed, the Oklahoma statutes under which he was convicted did “not require an intent to deprive” and thus did not qualify as crimes of moral turpitude. R. at 53 (Hr’g Tr., dated Mar. 18, 2013). However, the IJ found that all four of his convictions constituted crimes involving moral turpitude. With respect to eligibility for waiver relief, the IJ concluded that Mr. Obregon could not “readjust his status with a [§ 1182](h) waiver” under BIA precedent. Id. at 39 (Oral Decision of IJ, dated Apr. 22, 2013). 6 4 (...continued) consideration, any personal property of any value whatsoever that has been stolen . . . knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the same to have been stolen . . . or who conceals, withholds, or aids in concealing or withholding such property from the owner, shall be guilty of a felony . . . . 5 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) renders removable any alien “convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years . . . after the date of admission,” and for which “a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed.” 6 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) authorizes the Attorney General, in her discretion, to waive the applicability of certain grounds of inadmissibility, including crimes involving moral turpitude. However, the Attorney General may not grant a waiver “in the case of an alien who has previously been admitted to (continued...) 4 Mr. Obregon then appealed to the BIA, alleging that the IJ erred because his convictions lacked the “permanent intent to deprive” element necessary to constitute crimes involving moral turpitude. Further, he claimed that he should have been allowed to apply for a § 1182(h) waiver since he did not enter the country as a lawful permanent resident, but rather “adjusted status” to that of a lawful permanent resident after entry. In a one-judge decision, the BIA dismissed Mr. Obregon’s appeal. It noted that “an offense of receiving stolen property qualifies as a CIMT where the offense includes an element of knowing that the property is stolen.” Id. at 4 (BIA Decision, dated Oct. 2, 2013). It concluded that Mr. Obregon’s convictions for possession of stolen vehicles and receiving stolen property met this mens rea threshold because they both required “a permanent taking of property known to be stolen.” Id. Finally, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s “findings concerning [Mr. Obregon’s] eligibility for relief” because, under its own precedential decision in Matter of Koljenovic, 25 I. & N. Dec. 219 (BIA 2010), Mr. Obregon “d[id] not qualify for a section [1182](h) waiver.” Id. This petition for review followed. 6 (...continued) the United States as an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if,” as relevant here, “the alien has not lawfully resided continuously in the United States for a period of not less than 7 years immediately preceding the date of initiation of [removal] proceedings.” 5