Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, No. 17-73153 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's order finding petitioner removable under section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The panel held that petitioner's prior conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes section 164.395 was a categorical theft offense and was therefore an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(G) of the INA. The panel held that the record supported the BIA's denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture where the BIA agreed with the IJ's conclusion that petitioner failed to establish that he would more likely than not face a particularized risk of torture with the acquiescence of a public official in Guatemala.
Court Description: Immigration. Denying Ludwin Israel Lopez-Aguilar’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that third-degree robbery under Oregon Revised Statutes § 164.395 is a categorical theft offense and, therefore, an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), and the panel concluded that the record supported the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA concluded that Lopez-Aguilar was removable for an aggravated felony theft offense based on his conviction for third-degree robbery under Oregon Revised Statutes § 164.395. The panel explained that, in the context of aggravated felonies, a generic theft offense is defined as (1) a taking of property or an exercise of control over property (2) without consent (3) with the criminal intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership, even if such deprivation is less than total or permanent. Lopez-Aguilar contended that section 164.395 is not categorically a generic theft offense because: (1) it incorporates theft by deception, which covers consensual takings, and (2) it incorporates unauthorized use of a vehicle,
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 29, 2019.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on January 28, 2020.
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.