Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I&N Dec. 838, 842 (BIA 2012) (California conviction of accessory after the fact, in violation of Penal Code 32, with a sentence of 16 months imprisonment, is a conviction for an aggravated felony under INA 101(a)(43)(S), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(S) because it include[s] the element of an affirmative and intentional attempt, motivated by a specific intent, to interfere with the process of justice), quoting Matter of Espinoza, 22 I&N Dec. 889, 894 (BIA 1999); disagreeing with Trung Thanh Hoang v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 2011) (BIA requires actual interference with an ongoing criminal proceeding or investigation).

Note: The BIA interpreted the obstruction of justice provision more broadly than the Ninth Circuits more restrictive approach, pursuant to Brand X, the Supreme Court decision that allows an agency to issue a reasonable interpretation of a statute within its expertise even after a court has found an earlier agency interpretation unreasonable. Matter of Valenzuela Gallardo, 25 I&N Dec. 838, 840 (BIA 2012), discussing Natl Cable & Telecomms. Assn v. BrandX Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005). The question remains whether the Ninth Circuit will conclude that the aggravated felony definition, also used extensively in federal criminal cases, falls exclusively within the purview of the BIA to interpret immigration laws. The Ninth Circuit could also determine the statute is not ambiguous, after employing normal statutory interpretation standards, or that the BIAs interpretation is unreasonable, to justify deference.