Olivas-Motta v. Holder, No. 10-72459 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a lawful permanent resident charged with removal based on his alleged conviction of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), petitioned for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner's conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a CIMT. The Attorney General held in Matter of Silva-Trevino that an IJ could rely on evidence outside the record of conviction to determine whether a petitioner had been "convicted of" a CIMT. The court joined the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that Silva-Trevino was wrongly decided. The court held that a CIMT was a generic crime whose description was complete unto itself, such that "involving moral turpitude" was an element of the crime. Because it was an element of the generic crime, an IJ was limited to the record of conviction in determining whether an alien had been "convicted of" a CIMT. In this case, the court concluded that the IJ and BIA improperly considered evidence beyond the record of conviction in holding that petitioner was "convicted of" a "crime involving moral turpitude." Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted Manuel Olivas-Motta’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision concluding, on the basis of police reports, that his conviction for endangerment under Arizona law constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. The panel held that a “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) is a generic crime whose description is complete unto itself, such that “involving moral turpitude” is an element of the crime and an Immigration Judge is limited to the record of conviction to determine whether an alien was “convicted of” a CIMT. The panel held that the Attorney General wrongly decided, in his published precedential opinion Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687 (A.G. 2008), that an IJ may rely on evidence outside the record of conviction to determine whether a petitioner has been convicted of a CIMT. Judge Kleinfeld, concurring in the result, disagreed with the majority’s wholesale rejection of deference to the Matter of Silva-Trevino opinion, but would not address whether it merits Chevron deference because the BIA’s reliance on the police report in this case was mistaken. Judge Kleinfeld would also find that Matter of Silva-Trevino, reasonably construed, is not arbitrary or capricious, but that it was misapplied in this case.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on April 1, 2014.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.