Hernandez v. Lynch, No. 15-60067 (5th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Petitioner, a citizen of Mexico, was determined ineligible for cancellation of removal after an IJ concluded that his conviction for deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code 22.05(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). The BIA applied the “realistic probability” approach to hold that deadly conduct was categorically a CIMT and dismissed the appeal. The court held that, for the reasons explained in Mercado v. Lynch, the BIA applied the incorrect standard in analyzing whether petitioner’s conviction constitutes a CIMT. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the BIA to analyze petitioner’s convictions under the minimum reading approach.

Download PDF
Case: 15-60067 Document: 00513492473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60067 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED OMAR ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, May 4, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Petitioner Omar Alberto Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, was determined ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C) after an immigration judge concluded that his conviction for deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code § 22.05(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which applied the “realistic probability” approach to hold that deadly conduct was categorically a CIMT and dismissed the appeal. 1 For the reasons explained in Mercado v. Lynch, 14-60539, slip op. at 3-5 (5th Cir. May 4, 2016), 1 Matter of Hernandez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 464 (BIA 2015). Case: 15-60067 Document: 00513492473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2016 No. 15-60067 we hold that the BIA applied the incorrect standard in analyzing whether Petitioner’s conviction constitutes a CIMT. We reverse and remand for the BIA to analyze Petitioner’s convictions under the minimum reading approach. 2

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.