GUZMAN-MALDONADO V. GARLAND, No. 23-9 (9th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Israeil Guzman-Maldonado, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and a citizen of Mexico, was convicted of three counts of armed robbery under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-1904(A) in 2019. He was sentenced to concurrent eight-year terms for the first two counts and two years of probation for the third. In 2022, an immigration judge ordered Guzman's removal because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony theft offense and two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising from a single scheme. Guzman appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed his appeal, prompting him to petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit denied Guzman's petition for review, concluding that a conviction for armed robbery under A.R.S. § 13-1904(A), for which the term of imprisonment imposed is at least one year, is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), thereby giving rise to removability. Applying the categorical approach, the court compared the elements of the generic federal crime and of Arizona armed robbery and concluded that Guzman’s conviction under A.R.S. § 13-1904(A) necessarily required proof of each element of generic theft. The court rejected Guzman's arguments that the Arizona statute encompasses "consensual" takings or the theft of services, both of which would have made it broader than generic theft.
Court Description: Immigration Denying Israeil Guzman-Maldonado’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that a conviction for armed robbery in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13- 1904(A), for which the term of imprisonment imposed is at least one year, is categorically an aggravated felony theft offense giving rise to removability under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Applying the categorical approach, the panel explained that the elements of generic federal theft are (1) a taking of property or an exercise of control over property (2) without consent of the owner (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. As for the Arizona offense of armed robbery, the panel explained that the state must prove that the defendant, while armed with a real or simulated deadly weapon, (1) took property from a person or his immediate presence (2) against that person’s will (3) using or threatening force with the coexistent intent to take the property.
Comparing the elements of the generic federal crime and of Arizona armed robbery, the panel concluded that Guzman’s conviction under A.R.S. § 13-1904(A) necessarily required proof of each element of generic theft, and that the Arizona offense is therefore on its face an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G) if the term of imprisonment is, as it was in this case, at least one year. Thus, the panel concluded that the agency did not err in finding Guzman removable under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
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.