Sales Jr. v. Sessions, No. 15-70885 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that petitioner's California conviction for second degree murder on an aiding and abetting theory qualified as an aggravated felony. The panel explained that the Supreme Court, in 2007, reviewed California's law on aiding and abetting, which like that of many jurisdictions looks to the natural and probable consequences of an act the defendant intended. Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 191–93 (2007). The Supreme Court concluded that absent a showing that the law has been applied in some "special" way, a conviction in California for aiding and abetting a removable offense was also a removable offense. The panel held that California law has not materially changed since Duenas-Alvarez was decided and was not applied in any "special" way in petitioner's case.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Cornelio Dela Cruz Sales’ petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision concluding that his California conviction for second degree murder, based on an aiding and abetting theory, made him removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The panel held that California law on aiding and abetting, which looks to the natural and probable consequences of an act the defendant intended, had not materially changed since the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007). In Duenas-Alvarez, the Supreme Court held that absent a showing that the law had been applied in some “special” way, a California conviction for aiding and abetting a removable offense is also a removable offense. The panel concluded that there is nothing special about the California aiding and abetting law that brings it or Sales’ conduct outside the generic definition of aiding and abetting. Accordingly, the panel held that the Board correctly ruled that Sales’ conviction for second degree murder as an aider and abettor was an aggravated felony for purposes of his removal proceedings. SALES V. SESSIONS 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.