Hernan Hernandez-Zavala v. Loretta Lynch , 806 F.3d 259 ( 2015 )

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1878
HERNAN HERNANDEZ-ZAVALA, a/k/a Herman Hernandez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Argued: September 15, 2015 Decided: November 20, 2015
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition for review denied by published opinion. Judge Duncan
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Floyd and Senior Judge
Hamilton joined.
ARGUED: William Robinson Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Petitioner. Briena Lorraine Strippoli,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent. ON BRIEF: Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Division, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant
Director, Edward C. Durant, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:
Hernan Hernandez-Zavala petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA’s”) order affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) pretermission of Hernandez-Zavala’s
application for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that
substantial evidence in the record indicated that Hernandez-
Zavala had committed a “crime of domestic violence” as defined
under section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Given this, the BIA
found that Hernandez-Zavala was statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b). For the reasons set forth below, we deny Hernandez-
Zavala’s petition.
I.
On March 8, 2012, Hernandez-Zavala, a native and citizen of
Mexico, was charged with several misdemeanor offenses under
North Carolina law. On March 21, 2012, he pleaded guilty in the
District Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to the
offense of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(1). That statute provides as follows:
Unless the conduct is covered under some other
provision of law providing greater punishment, any
person who commits any assault, assault and battery,
or affray is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor if, in
the course of the assault, assault and battery, or
2
affray, he or she: (1) Inflicts serious injury upon
another person or uses a deadly weapon . . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-33(c)(1). This offense covers general
assault and battery; it does not specifically cover incidents of
domestic violence or require proof of a domestic relationship.
In this case, it is undisputed that the victim of the assault
was a woman Hernandez-Zavala described in his brief as his
“partner,” with whom he resides and shares a child.
Petitioner’s Br. at 4.
On March 9, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security
(“DHS”) served Hernandez-Zavala with a Notice to Appear.
Because Hernandez-Zavala had been neither admitted nor paroled
when he entered the United States, DHS charged him with
removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i),
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Hernandez-Zavala conceded
removability and applied for cancellation of removal. 1
On February 4, 2013, DHS moved to pretermit Hernandez-
Zavala’s application, asserting that he had been convicted of a
1
Pursuant to the INA, “[t]he Attorney General may cancel
removal of, and adjust to the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, an alien who is inadmissible
or deportable from the United States if the alien” satisfies
certain criteria. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). One such criterion
is that the noncitizen must not have been convicted of any of
the criminal offenses enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
3
“crime of domestic violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Under this provision, “[a]ny alien who at any time after
admission is convicted of a crime of domestic violence . . . is
deportable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The same provision
defines a “crime of domestic violence” as
any crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of
title 18) against a person committed by a current or
former spouse of the person, by an individual with
whom the person shares a child in common, by an
individual who is cohabiting with or has cohabited
with the person as a spouse, by an individual
similarly situated to a spouse of the person under the
domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction
where the offense occurs, or by any other individual
against a person who is protected from that
individual’s acts under the domestic or family
violence laws of the United States or any State,
Indian tribal government, or unit of local government.
Id. Asserting that Hernandez-Zavala had committed such a crime,
DHS argued that he was therefore ineligible for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Hernandez-Zavala
contested this assertion, claiming that his assault conviction
does not constitute a “crime of domestic violence.”
On March 18, 2013, the IJ granted DHS’s motion to pretermit
Hernandez-Zavala’s application for cancellation of removal.
Applying 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), the IJ first determined
that the offense for which Hernandez-Zavala was convicted was
categorically a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16, a
finding that Hernandez-Zavala does not challenge on appeal.
4
Next, the IJ considered whether the North Carolina
conviction was a “crime of domestic violence” under the INA.
The IJ considered the offense of conviction as well as the
underlying evidence and found that Hernandez-Zavala’s conviction
constituted a “crime of domestic violence” under both a modified
categorical approach and a circumstance-specific approach. The
IJ thus concluded that Hernandez-Zavala was statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal.
On April 8, 2013, Hernandez-Zavala appealed the IJ’s
decision to the BIA, arguing that the IJ should not have
considered any underlying evidence and that his conviction was
not categorically a disqualifying offense under
§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). He did not contest the IJ’s finding with
respect to his domestic relationship with his victim. The BIA,
adopting the circumstance-specific approach, concluded that the
IJ properly found that Hernandez-Zavala’s conviction constituted
a “crime of domestic violence,” rendering him statutorily
ineligible for cancellation of removal. Hernandez-Zavala
subsequently filed a petition for review with this court.
II.
The question presented in this case is a purely legal one:
whether a conviction under a state law that does not have a
domestic relationship as an element of the offense can
5
constitute a “crime of domestic violence” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). This is a matter of first impression in
this circuit.
On appeal from the BIA, this court reviews legal questions
de novo. Salem v. Holder, 647 F.3d 111, 115 (4th Cir. 2011).
Where, as here, “the BIA and the immigration judge both issue
decisions in a case, we review both decisions upon appeal.”
Kourouma v. Holder, 588 F.3d 234, 239-40 (4th Cir. 2009). This
court has jurisdiction over this petition for review pursuant to
INA § 242(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a).
A.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), a “crime of domestic
violence” has two requirements: it must be a “crime of violence”
as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 16, and the crime must have been
committed by an individual who was in a domestic relationship
with the victim.
There is no dispute in this case that Hernandez-Zavala’s
North Carolina assault conviction constitutes a “crime of
violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16 2 or that Hernandez-Zavala was in a
2 A “crime of violence” is “an offense that has as an
element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against the person or property of another,” or “any other
offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a
substantial risk that physical force against the person or
(Continued)
6
domestic relationship with his victim. The only question is
whether the domestic relationship requirement in the statute
must be an element of the underlying offense of conviction,
triggering the categorical approach, or if it must merely be an
attendant circumstance of the underlying conviction, triggering
the circumstance-specific approach.
Hernandez-Zavala argues that the categorical approach
should apply, while DHS argues that the circumstance-specific
approach should apply. Under the categorical approach, one need
only look to the statutory definition of the North Carolina
offense to see if it contains the necessary elements of a “crime
of domestic violence” under the INA. If the elements do not
correspond, the inquiry stops there. Under the “circumstance-
specific” approach, the court may also consider underlying
evidence of the conviction to determine if a domestic
relationship existed between Hernandez-Zavala and his victim.
B.
To determine which approach should apply, we first consider
the previous uses of, and the rationales behind, the categorical
approach and the circumstance-specific approach. We then
property of another may be used in the course of committing the
offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 16.
7
address the specific “crime of domestic violence” provision at
issue in this petition. We conclude that when assessing whether
an underlying state conviction qualifies as a crime of domestic
violence under the INA, the use of the circumstance-specific
approach is proper in determining whether the requisite domestic
relationship existed. Accordingly, we find that Hernandez-
Zavala’s conviction for assault with a deadly weapon against a
woman with whom he was in a domestic relationship indeed
constitutes a “crime of domestic violence,” rendering him
ineligible for cancellation of removal.
1.
Although the categorical approach had its beginnings in the
criminal context, it has “a long pedigree” in immigration law.
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678, 1685 (2013). It is
“[r]ooted in Congress’ specification of conviction, not conduct,
as the trigger for immigration consequences.” Mellouli v.
Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980, 1986 (2015).
Under the categorical approach, “we look not to the facts
of the particular prior case, but instead to whether the state
statute defining the crime of conviction categorically fits
within the ‘generic’ federal definition of a corresponding”
crime. Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1684 (quoting Gonzales v.
Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 186 (2007))(quotation marks
omitted). The Court clarified that “[b]y ‘generic,’ we mean the
8
offenses must be viewed in the abstract, to see whether the
state statute shares the nature of the federal offense that
serves as a point of comparison.” Id.A generic federal offense and a state offense categorically
match “only if a conviction of the state offense ‘necessarily’
involved . . . facts equating to [the] generic [federal
offense].” Id. (quoting Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13,
24 (2005))(quotation marks omitted)(alterations in original).
Consequently, we make no factual inquiry into the particular
circumstances of the conviction. 3 Mellouli, 135 S. Ct. at 1986.
This approach is a practical one, designed to “promote[]
judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the
relitigation of past convictions in minitrials conducted long
after the fact.” Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1690.
3
At times, the statute under which the defendant was
convicted may be “divisible”--that is, it may “set[] out one or
more elements of the offense in the alternative.” Descamps v.
United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276, 2281 (2013). Under those
circumstances, the sentencing court or the immigration judge may
“consult a limited class of documents, such as indictments and
jury instructions, to determine which alternative formed the
basis of the defendant’s prior conviction.” Id. The sentencing
court or the IJ then proceeds to the traditional categorical
approach, and “compare[s] the elements of the crime of
conviction (including the alternative element used in the case)
with the elements of the generic crime.” Id.Because “the dispute here does not concern any list of
alternative elements,” but rather concerns the total absence of
an element from the state offense, the modified categorical
approach “has no role to play in this case.” Id. at 2285.
9
2.
When the federal statute does not describe a generic
offense, but instead “refer[s] to the specific acts in which an
offender engaged on a specific occasion,” the circumstance-
specific approach is appropriate. Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S.
29, 34 (2009). Under this approach, while the congruence of the
elements of the underlying offense and the offense described in
the federal statute must be assessed using the categorical
approach, courts may consider other evidence to see if the
necessary attendant circumstances existed. See, e.g., id.
at 38, 42-43.
In Nijhawan v. Holder, the Supreme Court for the first time
applied the circumstance-specific approach in the immigration
context. There, the Court considered another criminal offense
enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2), that, like the one here,
renders an individual ineligible for cancellation of removal.
An “aggravated felony,” defined elsewhere in the statute,
includes “an offense that . . . involves fraud or deceit in
which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000.”
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i). The issue in Nijhawan was whether
that definition’s loss requirement should be interpreted as
referring to a generic crime, triggering the categorical
approach, or whether it should be interpreted as “referring to
the specific way in which an offender committed the crime on a
10
specific occasion,” triggering the “circumstance-specific”
approach. Nijhawan, 557 U.S. at 34.
The Court found that the provision in question triggered
the circumstance-specific approach in part because of its
phrasing and in part because “to apply a categorical
approach . . . would leave [the provision] with little, if any,
meaningful application.” Id. at 39. The Court emphasized that
it had “found no widely applicable federal fraud statute that
contains a relevant monetary loss threshold.” Id. Further, at
the time the law was passed, only eight states had statutes that
would have had a relevant threshold if subparagraph (M)(i) were
interpreted under the categorical approach. Id. at 40.
Concluding that Congress would not have designed
subparagraph (M)(i) “to apply in so limited and so haphazard a
manner,” the Court held that the monetary threshold was not
meant to be applied categorically. Instead, courts must look
“to the specific circumstances surrounding an offender’s
commission of a fraud and deceit crime on a specific occasion.”
Id.In Moncrieffe, the Court provided additional guidance for
when courts could deviate from the categorical approach and use
the circumstance-specific approach outlined in Nijhawan. The
Court noted that the monetary threshold at issue in Nijhawan was
“a limitation, written into the INA itself.” Moncrieffe,
11
133 S. Ct. at 1691. By “[l]ocating this exception in the INA
proper,” Congress indicated “an intent to have the relevant
facts found in immigration proceedings.” Id. The Court
contrasted this with situations in which “the INA incorporates
other criminal statutes wholesale,” in which case “it ‘must
refer to generic crimes,’ to which the categorical approach
applies.” Id. (quoting Nijhawan, 557 U.S. at 37).
In United States v. Hayes, the Court considered a criminal
statute with nearly identical statutory text to the provision
before us. 555 U.S. 415 (2009). There, the Court interpreted
the definition of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” for
the purposes of a firearm possession ban in the Gun Control Act
of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). This term is defined in
18 U.S.C. § 921 as an offense that
has, as an element, the use or attempted use of
physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly
weapon, committed by a current or former spouse,
parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with
whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person
who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the
victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a
person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or
guardian of the victim.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). Although Hayes arose in the
criminal context rather than in the immigration context, we find
its reasoning instructive.
12
The Court considered whether, for the conviction to trigger
the possession ban, the underlying conviction must include as an
element the existence of a domestic relationship between the
victim and the aggressor. Hayes, 555 U.S. at 418. The Court
ultimately concluded that the relationship “need not be
denominated an element of the predicate offense.” Id. at 426.
Again, the Court looked to the language Congress used and
to the purpose of the law. It reasoned that because Congress
had used the singular form of the word “element” in the text,
this “suggest[ed] that Congress intended to describe only one
required element.” Id. at 421. The Court found that “[t]he
manner in which the offender acts, and the offender’s
relationship with the victim, are conceptually distinct
attributes.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The
term “element” immediately precedes the use of force
requirement, not the domestic relationship requirement. Thus,
the Court ultimately concluded that, “[h]ad Congress meant to
make the latter as well as the former an element of the
predicate offense, it likely would have used the plural
‘elements,’ as it has done in other offense-defining
provisions.” Id. at 421-22.
Additionally, the Supreme Court noted that at the time the
statute was passed, “only about one-third of the States had
criminal statutes that specifically proscribed domestic
13
violence.” Id. at 427. The Court further found that even in
states that did have laws specifically against domestic
violence, “domestic abuses were (and are) routinely prosecuted
under generally applicable assault or battery laws.” Id.Therefore, to hold that the categorical approach should apply
would “would frustrate Congress’ manifest purpose.” Id.C.
Because of the statutory structure, the Supreme Court’s
holding in Hayes, and practical considerations, we conclude that
the circumstance-specific approach should apply in this case.
First, just as the monetary threshold requirement in
Nijhawan was “a limitation[] written into the INA itself,”
Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct. at 1691, so too is the domestic
relationship component here. This provision of the INA
incorporated by reference the definition of the generic “crime
of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16, but it did not do so
“wholesale.” Id. Rather, it limited deportation consequences
to a certain class of offenders. Under this provision, a crime
of violence is a deportable offense only when “committed by”
someone in a domestic relationship with the victim. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Further, as the Court has previously
remarked, when Congress “[l]ocat[es] [an] exception in the INA
proper,” it indicates its “intent to have the relevant facts
14
found in immigration proceedings.” Moncrieffe, 133 S. Ct.
at 1691.
Second, we find the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
nearly identical statutory text in Hayes to be instructive.
Hernandez-Zavala primarily relies on one distinction between the
statute at issue in Hayes and the relevant statute in his case:
“the use of the word ‘element.’” Petitioner’s Br. at 16.
He argues that the conclusion in Hayes hinged on Congress’s
use of the singular form of “element.” Therefore, in his view,
the absence of the word “element” from § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) should
result in the opposite conclusion here. But the word “element”
does appear in § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i): it is incorporated by
reference in the definition of “crime of violence.” See
18 U.S.C. § 16 (defining “crime of violence” to mean “an
offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or property
of another” (emphasis added)). It is thus even more clear in
the INA than in the statute at issue in Hayes that the term
“element” applies only to the use of force requirement.
Finally, the practical considerations described in Hayes
support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to require
the domestic relationship component to be an element of the
underlying offense. Congress passed the INA’s “crime of
domestic violence” provision in 1996, the same year it passed
15
§ 922(g)(9), the statute at issue in Hayes. Just as in Hayes,
to construe this statute as requiring the domestic relationship
to be an element of the underlying offense “would frustrate
Congress’ manifest purpose,” given that the law “would have been
‘a dead letter’ in some two-thirds of the States from the very
moment of its enactment.” Hayes, 555 U.S. at 427.
The practical considerations listed by this court in
Prudencio v. Holder also weigh in favor of the circumstance-
specific approach. 669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012). In Prudencio,
which concerned the applicability of the circumstance-specific
approach to the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude,” we
observed that the monetary threshold criterion at issue in
Nijhawan is an “objective” one. The determination of amount of
loss “requires no interpretation whatsoever,” with an inquiry
“involv[ing] only the inspection of a single threshold fact.”
Prudencio, 669 F.3d at 483. The phrase “crime involving moral
turpitude,” however, involves a determination that “could
require evaluation of all the evidence in an underlying criminal
case by an adjudicator wholly unfamiliar with those
proceedings.” Id. Thus, while the circumstance-specific
approach was appropriate in Nijhawan, it was not appropriate in
Prudencio.
Our “very real evidentiary concerns” in Prudencio
surrounding such “unbridled evaluation” are not present in this
16
case. Id. The inquiry that must be made here--whether the
noncitizen and the victim of the prior offense were in a
domestic relationship--involves the inspection of a single
threshold fact. This determination will often be
straightforward and objective, reducing fears that the
adjudicator will have to conduct a “minitrial” to reach a
conclusion. As the Court noted in Hayes, “generally . . . it
would entail no elaborate factfinding process . . . to determine
whether the victim of a violent assault was the perpetrator’s
‘current or former spouse’ or bore one of the other domestic
relationships.” 555 U.S. at 427 n.9 (citations omitted).
Our reasoning is in accord with our only sister circuit to
have addressed this issue after the Supreme Court’s decisions in
Hayes and Nijhawan. In Bianco v. Holder, the Fifth Circuit
similarly concluded that the domestic relationship component in
the INA’s definition of a “crime of domestic violence” did not
need to be an element of the underlying offense. 624 F.3d 265,
272 (5th Cir. 2010).
Although the Fifth Circuit gave “respectful consideration”
to the Ninth Circuit’s 2004 interpretation of this statute in
Tokatly v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2004), the court
concluded that it must “view that court’s analysis in light of
two subsequent Supreme Court decisions that arguably opened the
door to a new ‘circumstance-specific’ approach.” Id. at 270.
17
We agree. Although the Ninth Circuit has continued to favorably
cite Tokatly following Hayes and Nijhawan, see, e.g., Olivas-
Motta v. Holder, 746 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2013), we do not
find Tokatly’s reasoning persuasive given the Supreme Court’s
subsequent holdings.
Our conclusion today does not conflict with our previous
assessment that Nijhawan does not “permit[] an unrestricted
circumstance-specific inquiry in the absence of express guidance
from Congress.” Prudencio, 669 F.3d at 483. The domestic
relationship requirement falls within the narrow category in
which “Congress modified the generic crime . . . with a
qualifying phrase that requires a fact-specific review.” Id.
As the Fifth Circuit concluded in Bianco, “the categorical and
modified categorical approaches remain the analysis in the areas
of their traditional application, including a court’s
application of those approaches to identifying the elements of
offenses for which aliens may be removed under
Section 1227(a)(2).” 624 F.3d at 273.
III.
In conclusion, we affirm the BIA’s decision because we find
that Hernandez-Zavala’s conviction for assault with a deadly
weapon, committed against someone with whom he had a domestic
relationship, renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal
18
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). For the reasons stated above,
Hernandez-Zavala’s petition for review is
DENIED.
19