Perez Alonzo v. Lynch, No. 15-2024 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from an IJ's decision (1) finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), for having been convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, and (2) denying his application for cancellation of removal. The court concluded that all four of petitioner's convictions under Iowa Code Annotated 708.2A, including his third and fourth convictions under the section 708.2A(4)'s recidivist provision, are dependent upon the definition of "assault" in section 708.1(2). "Because [§ 708.1] is divisible into discrete subsections of turpitudinous acts and nonturpitudinous acts," petitioner's domestic-abuse assault convictions do not categorically constitute CIMTs. Therefore, the BIA erred in declining to review petitioner's record of convictions, under the modified categorical approach, to determine whether he was convicted under a subsection that describes a CIMT. The court granted the petition for review, vacated, and remanded for the BIA to consider the issue in the first instance.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Bye and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. All four of petitioner's convictions under Iowa Code Section 708.2A, including his third and fourth convictions under Section 708.2A(4)'s recidivist provision, are dependent on the definition of assault in Section 708.1(2); because that section is divisible into turpitudinous and non-turpitudinous acts, petitioner's domestic abuse convictions do not categorically constitute crimes involving moral turpitude, and the BIA erred in declining to review petitioner's record of convictions, under the modified categorical approach, to determine whether he has been convicted under a subsection that describes a crime involving moral turpitude; the matter must, therefore, be remanded to the BIA to permit it to consider the issue in the first instance.
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.