Opinion ID: 3050941
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vizcarra-Ayala’s conduct

Text: Where a prior offense does not categorically meet the requisite “aggravated felony” definition, we apply, in certain circumstances, the so-called “modified categorical approach” to determine “if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a defendant was convicted of the elements of the generically defined crime even though his or her statute of conviction was facially overinclusive.” United States v. Kelly, 422 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Chang v. INS, 307 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2002)). Vizcarra-Ayala contends the government has failed to meet its burden under the modified categorical approach to show that his conviction necessarily included the requisite elements of the generic offense of forgery.5 We agree. 5 “When the crime of conviction is missing an element of the generic crime altogether, we can never find that ‘a jury was actually required to find all the elements of’ the generic crime.” Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1073 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), (citing Li v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 892, 899-901 (9th Cir. 2004) (Kozinski, J., concurring)). While Penal Code § 475(c) arguably is missing an element of the generic crime of forgery — the presence of a fictitious or falsely made document — VizcarraAyala has not raised this particular argument before the BIA or this court. We need not decide whether the argument has been exhausted before the BIA and adequately raised before this court, and if it has, whether it has merit, because we grant the petition on other grounds which VizcarraAyala has exhausted before the BIA and the parties have briefed on appeal. VIZCARRA-AYALA v. MUKASEY 1075 [9] To determine the elements of which a particular defendant was convicted, courts can look to “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 to some comparable judicial record of this information.” Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 26 (2005). [10] The only judicial record of Vizcarra-Ayala’s conviction the government produced was an Abstract of Judgment. The Abstract in this case, assuming it may be relied upon,6 provides no indication of the context surrounding VizcarraAyala’s offense: It states only that Vizcarra-Ayala was convicted of violating Penal Code § 475(c), and thus provides no information regarding whether the conviction involved an altered or falsified document. Absent evidence that his conviction was for an offense relating to forgery within the scope of INA § 101(a)(43)(R), it cannot be used as a basis of removal on that ground.