Ortega-Lopez v. Lynch, No. 13-71127 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a Mexican citizen, challenged the BIA's decision holding that his misdemeanor conviction for participating in cockfighting under 7 U.S.C. 2156(a)(1) is a categorical crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). In Nunez v. Holder, the court held that non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim. Because the IJ and BIA never discussed how the statute of conviction - cockfighting - involved a “protected class of victim,” the court remanded for the BIA to consider the issue in light of Nunez. While the court's case law does not explicitly require the BIA to apply this language in Nunez, the court noted that a remand is appropriate in this case because the crime at issue involving harm to chickens is, at first blush, outside the realm of CIMTs.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted Agustin Ortega-Lopez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ published precedential decision, Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 26 I. & N. Dec. 99 (BIA 2013), which held that his conviction for sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an animal fighting venture under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) is a categorical crime involving moral turpitude. The panel found that the IJ and BIA did not discuss how the statute of conviction, cockfighting, involves an action that affects a protected class of victim. The panel cited the finding in Nunez v. Holder, 594 F.3d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 2010), that “non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim." The panel wrote that although this court’s case law does not explicitly require the BIA to apply the language in Nunez, it thought a remand to consider the language was appropriate because the crime at issue involving harm to chickens is outside the normal realm of CIMTs. Concurring fully in the majority opinion, Judge Bea wrote separately to emphasize the unsuitability of the Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990), framework to determine whether a particular crime is one involving moral turpitude. ORTEGA-LOPEZ V. LYNCH 3
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.