Opinion ID: 169469
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “M odified Categorical Approach”

Text: M r. Rivera-Bottzeck’s second argument is that the BIA erred by failing to apply the so-called “modified categorical approach” to determining whether he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Under that approach, which is borrowed from criminal sentencing law, a court first compares the definition of an aggravated felony in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) with the elements of the crime of conviction. See Vargas, 451 F.3d at 1108-09 (referring to the “categorical approach”). At this stage, courts “‘look[] only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions.” Id. at 1108 (quoting Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 1 (...continued) (unpublished). Under 10th Cir. R. 32.1, unpublished decisions of this court are not precedential. -8- (1990)) (alteration in original). But if the elements of the crime of conviction reach “a broad range of conduct, some of which would constitute an aggravated felony and some of which would not, courts resolve the ambiguity by consulting reliable judicial records.” Id. at 1109 (quotations omitted). In the context of a guilty plea, the judicial records that may be reviewed include “‘the terms of the charging document, the terms of a plea agreement or transcript of colloquy between judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea was confirmed by the defendant, or [some] comparable judicial record of this information.’” Id. at 1108 (quoting Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005)). Some courts refer to this second step review of the record of conviction as a modified categorical approach. See Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 815, 819 (2007). The Supreme Court recently observed that the circuit courts have uniformly applied this approach in determining whether an alien’s conviction falls within the scope of an offense listed in the IN A, such that the alien is subject to removal. Id. at 818. In Vargas, we applied the approach in holding that it was appropriate for the BIA to review a charging document, in order to determine whether the petitioner was removable on the basis of being convicted of an aggravated felony under a different subsection of § 1101(a)(43). 451 F.3d at 1109. But we declined to decide whether the constraints of Taylor and Shepard necessarily apply in resolving that question. Id. at 1108. W e have not yet had an occasion to address -9- whether the modified categorical approach applies in the context presented in this case, where the agency found petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish he has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. W e need not decide that issue, however, because M r. Rivera-Bottzeck fails to identify any aspect of the BIA’s decision in this case that deviated from the modified categorical approach. W e have construed his pro se appeal briefs liberally. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003) (construing pro se appellate brief liberally). His initial argument is that the BIA failed to consider that the elements of Count Tw o do not require a showing of loss to the victims. But a categorical match between the INA definition of an aggravated felony and the statute of conviction is not a requirement for finding that the conviction was an aggravated felony. W hen the statutory elements of the offense of conviction cover both conduct that would, and conduct that would not, constitute an aggravated felony, the lack of a categorical match simply triggers the next step in the analysis. See Vargas, 451 F.3d at 1109. At that next step, M r. Rivera-Bottzeck contends that the BIA should have determined that the victims of his offense did not suffer any actual losses, yet he points to no evidence in the record of conviction to support that conclusion. Relying on the $65,000 restitution order, the BIA determined that there was evidence indicating that the victims of petitioner’s offense suffered losses in -10- excess of $10,000. It was permissible for the BIA to consider the amount of restitution with respect to the question of the amount of loss to the victims. See Khalayleh v. INS, 287 F.3d 978, 980 (10th Cir. 2002) (considering restitution for amount of “actual loss” in plea agreement in determining whether petitioner was removable based on conviction of an aggravated felony); Ferreira v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that IJ properly looked to $22,000 restitution order in plea agreement in determining amount of loss to the victims). But it was petitioner’s burden to produce evidence that Count Two was not an aggravated felony. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d). He simply did not do so. Under the modified categorical approach the BIA could not rely solely on his factual assertions, unsupported by the record, regarding the basis for the restitution. Nonetheless, M r. Rivera-Bottzeck argues that under the modified categorical approach, the record must establish that the jury was required to find all the elements of the offense defined in the INA. He specifically points to the state court’s instruction to the jury to disregard evidence of loss. 2 For this proposition he cites a Ninth Circuit case: Li v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2004). “The decisions of the Ninth Circuit are not binding on this circuit.” FDIC v. Daily, 973 F.2d 1525, 1532 (10th Cir. 1992). In any event, the Li case is 2 The state court instructed the jury, before they deliberated on the two securities fraud counts, “I ruled a long time ago whether [the victims] make a great deal of money in this case or w hether they lose everything they invested is not relevant to the charges before you.” Admin. R. at 475. -11- factually dissimilar from this case because it involved a jury verdict, rather than a guilty plea. The jury did not reach a verdict on Count Two; petitioner’s conviction on that count instead rested on his guilty plea. Therefore, jury instructions and findings are not part of the record of conviction of his guilty plea that the BIA could have relied upon under the modified categorical approach. 3 Although petitioner asserted that the $65,000 restitution order was not based on actual loss to his victims, the B IA concluded that he failed to support that contention with any evidence. W e hold that the BIA did not apply an incorrect legal standard in concluding that M r. Rivera-Bottzeck failed to demonstrate that the victims of his crime did not suffer a loss in excess of $10,000.