This ground of deportation requires that a noncitizen whom the court determines has engaged in “conduct that violates the portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury to the person or persons for whom the protection order was issued is deportable.” [1218]  Therefore, not every court finding of a violation of a protection order will fall under this statute.  If the court finds that the noncitizen has violated a portion of a protection order that does not involve protection against (a) credible threats of violence, (b) repeated harassment, or (c) bodily injury to the protected person, it will not trigger deportation under this ground.

 

            Many protection orders are very broadly written, and prohibit such things as “any contact” or contact with persons other than the protected person, such as children or other relatives against whom there is no threat of violence or harassment.  Counsel can, when arranging a stipulation to a court finding, specify the portion of the court order violated, and choose a portion that will not trigger deportation under this ground.  If the record of the court finding does not indicate which portion of the court order was violated, and if the court order is overbroad with respect to the ground of deportation, including unlisted portions as well as the listed portions relating to violence and harassment, then arguably the “record of the determination” does not unequivocally show the noncitizen was found to have violated a listed portion of the order, and the finding will not trigger deportation under this ground.

 

[1218] INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii) (emphasis supplied).

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - FINDING OF VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER - RECORD OF CONVICTION - MODIFIED CATEGORICAL APPROACH ALLOWS CONSIDERATION OF THE PROTECTION ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT
Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. Jul.16, 2009) (per curiam) (immigration authorities properly considered restraining order and judgment holding an individual in contempt for disobeying it pursuant to Oregon's Family Abuse Prevention Act, Oregon Revised Statutes 107.700 to 107.735 (2007), in establishing the domestic violence court finding of violation of family protection order, for purposes of establishing deportability under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii)) under the modified categorical analysis).

Ninth Circuit

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER
Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. Jul.16, 2009)(per curiam) (Oregon court judgment holding an individual in contempt for disobeying the "stay away" portion of a restraining order issued pursuant to Oregon's Family Abuse Prevention Act ("FAPA"), Oregon Revised Statutes 107.700 to 107 .735 (2007), by being within 100 yards of his ex-wife's residence, qualifies as a violation of a "protection order" under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), for removal purposes); following Alanis-Alvarado v. Holder, 558 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. March 3, 2009) (California conviction under Penal Code 273.6, for violating a protective order issued pursuant to Family Code 6320, categorically qualifies as violation of a "protection order" under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), for removal purposes).

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - FINDING OF VIOLATION OF PROTECTION ORDER - RECORD OF CONVICTION - MODIFIED CATEGORICAL APPROACH ALLOWS CONSIDERATION OF THE PROTECTION ORDER AND THE JUDGMENT
Szalai v. Holder, 572 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. Jul.16, 2009) (per curiam) (immigration authorities properly considered restraining order and judgment holding an individual in contempt for disobeying it pursuant to Oregon's Family Abuse Prevention Act, Oregon Revised Statutes 107.700 to 107.735 (2007), in establishing the domestic violence court finding of violation of family protection order, for purposes of establishing deportability under INA 237(a)(2)(E)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii)) under the modified categorical analysis).