Fugow v. Barr, No. 16-70918 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's determination that petitioner was removeable. The panel held that petitioner's prior conviction for first degree unlawful imprisonment under Hawaii Revised Statutes 707-721(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that made him removable. Applying the categorical approach, the panel explained that the Hawaii statute requires proof that the defendant knew that his actions would expose another person to a risk of serious bodily injury, and the panel's decision accords with the decisions of its sister circuits.
Court Description: Immigration Denying Joseph Fugow’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that Fugow’s conviction for first-degree unlawful imprisonment under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 707-721(1) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) that made him removable. The panel observed that both the BIA and this court have been unable to establish any coherent criteria for determining which crimes are CIMTs. Nonetheless, the panel applied the categorical approach to determine whether Fugow’s conviction constitutes a CIMT. Examining the elements of the Hawaii statute, the panel explained that the least culpable way of committing first- degree unlawful imprisonment is to knowingly restrain another person under circumstances that the defendant knows will expose the person to a risk of serious bodily injury. Next, the panel compared the elements of the statute with the federal definition of a CIMT, noting that this court has defined a CIMT as involving either fraud or base, vile, and depraved conduct that shocks the public conscience. The panel also observed that non-fraudulent CIMTs generally involve an intent to injure, actual injury, or a protected class FUGOW V. BARR 3 of victims, but explained that this court has held that certain reckless endangerment offenses qualify as CIMTs. In Leal v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2014), the court held that an Arizona law barring recklessly endangering another person with a substantial risk of imminent death is a CIMT. The panel concluded that first-degree unlawful imprisonment under Hawaii law is categorically a CIMT. The panel explained that the state of mind contemplated by the Hawaii statute (knowledge) is higher than that of the Arizona statute in Leal (recklessness). The panel noted that the harm contemplated by the Hawaii statute is less severe than the harm contemplated by the Arizona statute, but explained that the combination of the harm and state of mind required by the Hawaii statute results in conduct that is no less turpitudinous than the conduct at issue in Leal.
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.