Eva Gonzalez Romo v. William Barr

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVA ISABEL GONZALEZ ROMO, Eva No. 16-71559 AKA Eva Isabel Romo, Petitioner, Agency No. A047-334-955 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 8, 2019 Portland, Oregon Filed August 14, 2019 Before: Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Susan P. Graber, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Fernandez; Concurrence by Judge Owens; Dissent by Judge Graber 2 GONZALEZ ROMO V. BARR SUMMARY* Immigration Denying Eva Isabel Gonzalez Romo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ precedential decision in Matter of Gonzalez Romo, 26 I. & N. Dec. 743 (BIA 2016), the panel held that Gonzalez was inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) and 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), because her conviction for solicitation to possess marijuana for sale, in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-1002(A), 13-3405(A)(2), was a crime involving moral turpitude. The panel gave Chevron deference to the BIA’s determination that a returning lawful permanent resident who has a felony conviction for solicitation to possess marijuana for sale is inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), even though that provision refers only to attempt and conspiracy to commit a crime involving moral turpitude, and not solicitation. The panel noted that there was no doubt that Gonzalez was convicted in Arizona of the crime of solicitation to possess over four pounds of marijuana for sale, and that drug trafficking crimes are generally crimes involving moral turpitude. The panel further noted that this court held in Barragan-Lopez v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2007), that “solicitation to possess at least four pounds of marijuana for sale constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude.” However, Barragan-Lopez involved 8 U.S.C. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. GONZALEZ ROMO V. BARR 3 § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), which applies to deportability determinations, and does not include the “attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime” phrase that appears in § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), for inadmissibility purposes. The panel rejected Gonzalez’s contention that, by referencing only “attempt or conspiracy,” § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) excluded crimes of solicitation. The panel stated that it saw no reason to deviate from the holding in Barragan-Lopez that solicitation of a crime of the magnitude of possession of at least four pounds of marijuana for sale is as turpitudinous as commission of the crime itself. The panel discussed the cases relied upon by Gonzalez, Leyva-Licea v. I.N.S., 187 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (addressing drug trafficking aggravated felonies, 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)) and Coronado-Durazo v. I.N.S., 123 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing controlled substance offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i)), in which this court held that other statutes referencing only attempts and conspiracies did not cover solicitation offenses. While recognizing that reasoning which excludes solicitation as to certain provisions could be said to apply whenever conspiracy or attempt are specifically mentioned ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals