Longinos Togonon v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LONGINOS CADENA TOGONON,                No. 19-71693
    Petitioner,
    Agency No.
    v.                       A062-970-937
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,                                 OPINION
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted November 16, 2021
    San Francisco, California
    Filed January 10, 2022
    Before: Richard A. Paez, Paul J. Watford, and
    Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Watford
    2                     TOGONON V. GARLAND
    SUMMARY *
    Immigration
    Granting Longinos Togonon’s petition for review of a
    decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held
    that arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451 is not
    a categorical match to its federal counterpart, 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i), and therefore, Togonon’s § 451(b) conviction was
    not an aggravated felony that rendered him removable.
    The BIA concluded that Togonon’s conviction was an
    aggravated felony under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(43)(E)(i), which
    defines the term “aggravated felony” to include “an offense
    described in” 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i). As relevant here, § 844(i)
    prohibits “maliciously” damaging or destroying, by means
    of fire or an explosive, certain real or personal property.
    The case turned on § 844(i)’s requirement that the
    defendant act “maliciously.” Because the statute does not
    define that term, the panel presumed that Congress intended
    to adopt the term’s established common law meaning.
    Joining the circuits to have addressed the issue, the panel
    held that a defendant acts “maliciously” if he either
    intentionally damages or destroys property covered by
    § 844(i) or acts with “willful disregard” of the likelihood that
    damage or injury would result from his or her acts. The
    panel also explained that acting with “willful disregard”
    requires that a defendant be subjectively aware of the risk
    that his actions will damage or destroy property and take the
    actions nonetheless.
    *
    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It
    has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
    TOGONON V. GARLAND                       3
    Under California law, a “person is guilty of arson when
    he or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or
    causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the
    burning of, any structure, forest land, or property.” 
    Cal. Penal Code § 451
    . Subsection (b), the provision under
    which Togonon was convicted, prohibits arson that “causes
    an inhabited structure or inhabited property to burn.”
    Although both the federal and state statutes require the
    defendant to act “maliciously,” the panel explained that
    California courts have interpreted that term in § 451 to
    criminalize a broader range of conduct than § 844(i) does.
    To be convicted under the federal statute, a defendant need
    not have intended to damage or destroy property covered by
    the statute, but he must at least have engaged in an
    intentional act that resulted in damage to or destruction of
    such property, and in doing so, must have been subjectively
    aware of the risk that his actions would result in that harm.
    By contrast, a defendant may be convicted under the
    California statute for engaging in an intentional act that
    results in the burning of an inhabited structure or property
    even if he was not subjectively aware of the risk that his
    actions would result in that harm. Thus, the panel concluded
    that the California statute is not a categorical match to its
    federal counterpart.
    The panel also concluded that its interpretation was not
    foreclosed by the court’s decision in United States v. Doe,
    
    136 F.3d 631
     (9th Cir. 1998). The panel explained that Doe
    involved a defendant engaged in the actus reus of the offense
    intentionally and did not speak to the issue here – namely,
    the mental state that must be shown when a defendant does
    not intentionally engage in conduct prohibited by the statute,
    but rather intentionally engages in an action that causes the
    effect prohibited by the statute.
    4                 TOGONON V. GARLAND
    COUNSEL
    Matthew N. Ball (argued), Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
    Denver, Colorado; Paul J. Collins, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
    LLP, Palo Alto, California; Andrew T. Brown and Matt
    Aiden Getz, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles,
    California; for Petitioner.
    Imran Zaidi (argued) and Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorneys;
    Anthony C. Payne, Assistant Director; Civil Division,
    United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for
    Respondent.
    OPINION
    WATFORD, Circuit Judge:
    Petitioner Longinos Togonon, a native and citizen of the
    Philippines, was admitted to the United States as a lawful
    permanent resident in 2013. In 2015, he was convicted of
    arson in violation of California Penal Code § 451(b) and
    sentenced to three years of imprisonment. In 2018, the
    Department of Homeland Security initiated removal
    proceedings against Togonon, alleging (as relevant for our
    purposes) that his arson offense qualifies as an “aggravated
    felony.” See 
    8 U.S.C. § 1227
    (a)(2)(A)(iii) (“Any alien who
    is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after
    admission is deportable.”).        The Immigration and
    Nationality Act defines the term “aggravated felony” to
    include “an offense described in” 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i).
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(43)(E)(i). The Board of Immigration
    Appeals (BIA) held that a conviction under California Penal
    Code § 451(b) is an offense described in 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i)
    and that Togonon is therefore subject to removal from the
    TOGONON V. GARLAND                       5
    United States. Reviewing that decision de novo, see
    Sandoval v. Sessions, 
    866 F.3d 986
    , 988 (9th Cir. 2017), we
    conclude that the BIA erred in so holding. We accordingly
    grant Togonon’s petition for review.
    To determine whether a state offense is “described in”
    
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i), we employ the categorical approach.
    Under that approach, we compare the elements of the state
    offense with the elements of the offense proscribed by
    § 844(i). If the state offense “criminalizes a broader range
    of conduct” than its federal counterpart, United States v.
    Edling, 
    895 F.3d 1153
    , 1155 (9th Cir. 2018), the state
    offense is not a categorical match and does not qualify as an
    aggravated felony.
    The elements of the offense proscribed by § 844(i) are
    readily discernible from the text of the provision. Under
    § 844(i), anyone who “maliciously damages or destroys, or
    attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an
    explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal
    property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any
    activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce” shall be
    punished according to law. Thus, to obtain a conviction,
    “the government must prove that the defendant:
    (1) maliciously; (2) damaged or destroyed a building,
    vehicle, or other real or personal property; (3) by means of
    fire or explosive; and (4) the building, vehicle, or personal
    or real property was used in interstate or foreign commerce
    or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.”
    United States v. Gullett, 
    75 F.3d 941
    , 947 (4th Cir. 1996). In
    conducting our analysis, we ignore the jurisdictional element
    (requiring a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce) and
    focus solely on the three substantive elements of the crime.
    Luna Torres v. Lynch, 
    578 U.S. 452
    , 473 (2016).
    6                  TOGONON V. GARLAND
    This case turns on the first element, which requires that
    the defendant act “maliciously.” Because the statute does
    not define “maliciously,” we presume that Congress
    intended to adopt the term’s established common law
    meaning. See United States v. Jones, 
    681 F.2d 610
    , 611 (9th
    Cir. 1982). At common law, a defendant committed arson
    (the closest common law analogue of § 844(i)) by
    maliciously burning the dwelling house of another. 3 Wayne
    R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 21.3, at 314 (3d ed.
    2018). A defendant acted maliciously by intentionally
    burning the dwelling house of another or by doing so
    wantonly, meaning “intentionally doing an act (e.g., starting
    a fire or burning his own premises) under circumstances in
    which the act created a very high risk of burning the dwelling
    house of another, where the actor knew of that risk but
    nonetheless engaged in the risk-taking act.” Id. § 21.3(e),
    at 329–30; see also Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce,
    Criminal Law 859–60 (3d ed. 1982); John Poulos, The
    Metamorphosis of the Law of Arson, 
    51 Mo. L. Rev. 295
    ,
    322 (1986).
    Every circuit to address the issue has borrowed the
    common law meaning of “maliciously” when defining the
    mens rea element of § 844(i). We join these courts in
    holding that a defendant acts “maliciously” if he either
    intentionally damages or destroys property covered by
    § 844(i) or acts “with willful disregard of the likelihood that
    damage or injury would result from his or her acts.” Gullett,
    
    75 F.3d at 948
    ; accord United States v. Grady, 
    746 F.3d 846
    ,
    848–49 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. Wiktor, 
    146 F.3d 815
    , 818 (10th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); United States v.
    Corona, 
    108 F.3d 565
    , 571 (5th Cir. 1997); see also
    McFadden v. United States, 
    814 F.2d 144
    , 146 (3d Cir.
    1987) (interpreting the same mens rea requirement in
    
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (f)). To act with “willful disregard,” the
    TOGONON V. GARLAND                         7
    defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk that his
    actions will damage or destroy property and take the actions
    nonetheless. See Corona, 
    108 F.3d at 571
    ; Gullett, 
    75 F.3d at 948
    .
    We can turn now to the elements of arson under
    California Penal Code § 451(b). California defines arson
    generally as follows: “A person is guilty of arson when he
    or she willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes
    to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning
    of, any structure, forest land, or property.” 
    Cal. Penal Code § 451
    .       Succeeding subsections specify different
    punishments for the offense, depending on factors such as
    the type of property burned. Subsection (b), the provision
    under which Togonon was convicted, prohibits arson that
    “causes an inhabited structure or inhabited property to burn.”
    In comparing the elements of arson under California
    Penal Code § 451(b) with the elements of 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i),
    we can begin and end our analysis with the mens rea
    element. Although both statutes require the defendant to act
    “maliciously,” California courts have interpreted that term
    in California Penal Code § 451 to criminalize a broader
    range of conduct than § 844(i) does.
    The case most relevant for our analysis is the California
    Supreme Court’s decision in In re V.V., 
    252 P.3d 979
     (Cal.
    2011). There, two teenagers ignited a firecracker and threw
    it onto a brush-covered hillside, starting a fire that burned
    five acres of forest land. 
    Id.
     at 980–81. The evidence
    established that the defendants intentionally ignited the
    firecracker and threw it onto the hillside, but they had not
    intended to burn forest land. 
    Id. at 985
    . The California
    Supreme Court upheld their juvenile adjudications under
    California Penal Code § 451. The court concluded that
    malice under § 451 requires only “a general intent to
    8                  TOGONON V. GARLAND
    willfully commit the act of setting on fire under such
    circumstances that the direct, natural, and highly probable
    consequences would be the burning of the relevant structure
    or property.” Id. at 984. The defendants in V.V. did not need
    to “know or be subjectively aware that the fire [on the forest
    property] would be the probable consequence of their acts.”
    Id. at 985 (emphasis added). Instead, they could be
    convicted so long as they were aware of facts that “would
    lead a reasonable person to realize that the direct, natural,
    and highly probable consequence of igniting and throwing a
    firecracker into dry brush would be the burning of the
    hillside.” Id.
    The government disagrees with this reading of V.V.,
    arguing that the defendants in that case were subjectively
    aware of the risk that their actions would cause the burning
    of forest land. We acknowledge the presence of language in
    the opinion to support that view. See id. (“Although V.V.
    and J.H. did not intend to set the hillside on fire, they knew
    that their intentional acts created a fire hazard.”); id. at 985
    n.4 (discussing how a third minor alerted the defendants to
    the risk of injuring someone with the firecracker). But the
    California Supreme Court nevertheless made clear, in the
    passage quoted earlier, that subjective awareness of the risk
    that forest land would be burned was not required for
    conviction. Id. at 985. And California appellate courts have
    interpreted V.V. in precisely that manner, upholding
    convictions under California Penal Code § 451 without
    requiring proof that the defendant was subjectively aware of
    the risk of burning forest land or other property. See, e.g.,
    Mason v. Superior Court, 
    195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527
    , 538 (Ct.
    App. 2015).
    Given the way California courts have interpreted the
    mens rea requirement of California Penal Code § 451, we
    TOGONON V. GARLAND                         9
    conclude that Togonon’s conviction under § 451(b) does not
    categorically match the offense proscribed by 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i). As discussed above, to be convicted under
    § 844(i), a defendant need not have intended to damage or
    destroy property covered by the statute. But he must at least
    have engaged in an intentional act that resulted in damage to
    or destruction of such property, and in doing so, he must
    have been subjectively aware of the risk that his actions
    would result in that harm. By contrast, a defendant may be
    convicted under California Penal Code § 451(b) for
    engaging in an intentional act that results in the burning of
    an inhabited structure or property even if he was not
    subjectively aware of the risk that his actions would result in
    that harm. The California Supreme Court made that point
    clear in V.V. when it held that the defendants “were not
    required to know or be subjectively aware that the fire”—
    that is, the burning of forest land—“would be the probable
    consequence of their acts.” 252 P.3d at 985. Thus,
    California Penal Code § 451(b) criminalizes a broader range
    of conduct than is prohibited under 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i) and
    therefore is not a categorical match to its federal counterpart.
    The only remaining issue is whether our interpretation of
    the mens rea requirement of § 844(i)—under which the
    defendant must at least be subjectively aware of the risk of
    damaging or destroying property—is foreclosed by our
    decision in United States v. Doe, 
    136 F.3d 631
     (9th Cir.
    1998). In Doe, the defendant was convicted under a different
    statute, 
    18 U.S.C. § 81
    , which punishes anyone who, “within
    the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
    States, willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns any
    building, structure or vessel,” or certain types of personal
    property. The defendant was a seventh-grade student who
    intentionally set fire to a paper towel in a paper-towel
    dispenser attached to a privacy partition in the girls’
    10                 TOGONON V. GARLAND
    bathroom. 
    136 F.3d at
    633–34, 636. She let the flame burn
    for a moment and then blew it out, or so she thought. After
    the defendant left the bathroom and returned to class, the
    school building caught fire, causing extensive damage. 
    Id.
    at 633–34.
    Although it was undisputed that the defendant did not
    intend to burn down the school building, our court upheld
    her conviction. We concluded that the defendant had
    “willfully and maliciously” set fire to the school building, as
    required under § 81, because she had intentionally “set fire
    to a paper towel in a dispenser attached to a partition in the
    building.” Id. at 636. We regarded that act as setting fire to
    the building itself (the actus reus of the offense) and held
    that because the defendant engaged in that act intentionally,
    nothing more was required to establish that she committed
    the actus reus “willfully and maliciously.” The district
    court’s finding that the defendant “knew the likely result of
    her conduct would damage the school” was therefore
    unnecessary to sustain the conviction. Id.
    We do not think Doe has any bearing on our
    interpretation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 844
    (i). As we have explained,
    a defendant acts “maliciously,” as that term was understood
    at common law, if she commits the actus reus of the offense
    either intentionally or wantonly. The court in Doe decided
    that the defendant engaged in the actus reus of the offense
    (setting fire to the school building) intentionally, so there
    was no need to explore whether she had acted wantonly. In
    other words, whether the defendant was subjectively aware
    of the risk that her actions would result in damage to the
    school building was irrelevant because her intentional act of
    setting fire to a portion of the school building was itself
    sufficient to support a conviction under 
    18 U.S.C. § 81
    . In
    contrast, the present case requires us to flesh out the mental
    TOGONON V. GARLAND                         11
    state that must be shown when a defendant does not
    intentionally engage in the conduct prohibited by the statute,
    but rather intentionally engages in an action that then causes
    the effect prohibited by the statute. Doe does not speak to
    that issue at all.
    Our decision in Doe, however, underscores just how
    broadly the California Supreme Court construed the arson
    statute in V.V. California Penal Code § 451 and 
    18 U.S.C. § 81
     both punish anyone who “willfully and maliciously sets
    fire to or burns” specified property. In Doe, the defendant
    intentionally set fire to or burned property specified in
    § 81—namely, the school building. But in V.V., the
    defendants did not intentionally set fire to property specified
    in § 451—there, forest land. They intentionally “set fire”
    only to a firecracker, and their act of throwing the
    firecracker, however dangerous, was not committed with an
    intent to set fire to forest land. Since the defendants in V.V.
    did not intentionally set fire to or burn forest land, they could
    have been convicted under the common law definition of
    “maliciously” only if they had set fire to or burned forest
    land wantonly. And establishing wanton conduct under
    common law malice, as discussed, would have required
    proof that the defendants were subjectively aware of the risk
    that their actions would result in the burning of forest land—
    precisely the mental state that the California Supreme Court
    held the defendants were not required to possess for § 451.
    252 P.3d at 985. In so holding, the California Supreme Court
    construed § 451 to criminalize conduct that would not be
    covered under either 
    18 U.S.C. § 81
     or § 844(i).
    Because we hold that Togonon is not removable on the
    only ground still asserted by the government, we need not
    12             TOGONON V. GARLAND
    consider his claim for relief from removal under the
    Convention Against Torture.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.