Estrada-Rodriguez v. Lynch, No. 15-2223 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's order of removal based on his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229(b)(1). Petitioner's conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated 5-13-205, assault in the first degree, as in effect in 2004, is not a CIMT. After the BIA reopened and remanded, the IJ reconsidered the status of the Arkansas conviction and determined that it constitutes a CIMT. The court held that the IJ was not collaterally estopped from reconsidering the CIMT issue because the CIMT issue was not previously determined by a valid and final judgment in a prior action between petitioner and DHS; rather, the CIMT issue was determined at an earlier stage of the same action and was reconsidered pursuant to the reopening of the action; in regard to the law of the case doctrine, it was not an abuse of discretion for the IJ to deem the CIMT issue appropriate for reconsideration; even applying Skidmore deference, the court affirmed the BIA's decision and agreed with the BIA that petitioner's conviction, in its 2004 form, categorically is a CIMT; and the court declined to address petitioner's due process argument. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Murphy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The IJ was not collaterally estopped from reconsidering the issue of whether petitioner's prior conviction for assault was a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) as the prior determination that it was not such a crime was not a valid and final judgment in a prior action between petitioner and the DHS; instead the determination was made at an earlier stage of the same action and was reconsidered pursuant to the reopening of the matter; nor did the agency err in determining the doctrine of law of the case did not preclude reconsideration based on factually similar cases that called into question the correctness of the IJ's earlier determination that the offense was not a CIMT; regardless of the level of deference paid the agency's determination, petitioner's Arkansas assault conviction under Arkansas Code Annotated Section 5-13-205, in its 2004 form, was categorically a CIMT. [ June 03, 2016
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.