Cornejo-Villagrana v. Sessions, No. 13-72185 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner's conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence assault under Arizona Revised Statutes 13-1203 and 13-3601 was a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E), and thus rendered him removeable. The panel held that the statute was divisible and, under the modified categorical approach, there was a sufficient factual basis to support that petitioner intentionally or knowingly caused any physical injury to his spouse. Therefore, petitioner's misdemeanor domestic violence conviction was a crime of domestic violence under section 1227(a)(2)(E), and he was removeable.
Court Description: Immigration The panel denied Jose Antonio Cornejo-Villagrana’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision concluding that his conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence assault under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203 and 13-3601 was a crime of domestic violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E) that rendered him removable. The panel concluded that the Arizona assault statute, Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203, is divisible and that, under the modified categorical approach, the record provided a sufficient factual basis to support a finding that Cornejo-Villagrana was convicted of a class 1 misdemeanor under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1), which requires intentionally or knowingly causing any physical injury to another person. The panel further held that Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-1203(A)(1) is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a), and that the domestic relationships enumerated under Arizona’s domestic violence provision, Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3601(A), are coextensive with the domestic relationships described in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E). Accordingly, the panel concluded that Cornejo-Villagrana’s conviction was a “crime of domestic violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E).
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 30, 2018.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 27, 2018.
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.