Almaza Arenas (overruling Young v. Holder) was vacated. It's going en banc. Many of you may be aware of this already, but if not--here it is. Now arguably, Moncrieffe still trumps Young v. Holder on the burden issue (for affirmative applications for relief), but this makes our advisory world much more challenging when advising undocumented clients.
Here is an update sent to criminal defenders in the Ninth Circuit on this case, where the court en banc will consider what is a divisible statute under Descamps, and may consider who has the burden of proving whether a divisible statute is a bar to eligibility for relief.
Below the first section, which is instructions for defenders, is a brief analysis of the issues and possible outcomes.
Thanks to Kathy Brady.
Almanza-Arenas v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014) will be Heard En Banc -- Divisible statutes, Burden of Proof
Bottom line for defenders: This case concerns when a statute is divisible. The advice on the matter has not changed. Where possible, the best practice is to make a record of a plea to specific conduct that would avoid an immigration penalty -- even if it appears that the statute is not truly divisible, and regardless of whether the person is fighting deportability or applying for relief.
For example, Almanza-Arenas addresses whether Cal Veh Code 10851 (taking a vehicle with intent to "temporarily or permanently" deprive the owner) is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Taking with permanent intent is a CIMT, taking with temporary intent is not.
We ask that whenever possible, the defendant should plead to taking with intent to temporarily deprive the owner. This probably always will be the advice. Even if we get good law, there always is the chance that overworked immigration judges might not have the correct analysis, and this makes it crystal clear.
However, in terms of the actual law, depending on how this case goes, the Ninth Circuit might find that either:
(a) VC 10851 and statutes like it are not divisible and must be judged solely on the minimum conduct ever prosecuted under the statute. In that case, even a specific plea to permanent taking is not a CIMT, because the minimum conduct is temporary taking; or
(b) VC 10851 is divisible. In that case, the question is burden of proof. If the issue is whether a permanent resident is deportable for moral turpitude, the government has the burden of proving that the person in fact was convicted of permanent intent. The question is, what happens if the immigrant is applying for relief, like cancellation. Does the Young rule stand, which would mean that the immigrant must produce a record of conviction that proves temporary intent? Or, as the Almanza-Arenas panel held, did the Supreme Court implicitly overrule Young, so that an inconclusive record of conviction would mean Mr. Almanza-Arenas would be eligible for relief, even if the statute were divisible?
You can see why we would like to avoid these questions by having the person specifically plead to temporary intent, where possible. But where that is not possible -- or where that was not done in a prior conviction that we must analyze -- Almanza-Arenas will help determine the rules.
Analysis. The Almanza-Arenas review presents an opportunity to clarify the categorical approach. Here is how I understand the basic issues. A great team, including Jayshri Srikantiah of Stanford Law School and Kara Hartzler of the Fed Defenders, is working on the case -- they can correct this summary as needed.
The Almanza-Arenas panel decision (Almanza-Arenas v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 2014)) addressed two questions about divisible statutes and the categorical approach.
Question 1: Is vehicle taking, Cal Veh Code 10851, "truly divisible" between alternative elements, under the test set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 in Descamps and Moncrieffe? (If a criminal statute is truly divisible, an immigration (or federal criminal court) judge may look at the individual's record of a conviction to see which of the statutory offenses the person was convicted of.)
Question 2: If a statute is truly divisible for purposes of eligibility for some relief -- here, cancellation of removal -- then who has the burden of proof and document production? Currently under Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc), the immigrant (read, the often indigent, detained, and unrepresented immigrant) has the burden of obtaining the record of conviction from the prior criminal case, and that record must prove that he or she was convicted of an offense that does not bar the relief. Earlier, better law had provided that due to the nature of the categorical approach, if an inconclusive record of conviction under a divisible statute is before the immigration judge, the immigrant has met his or her burden of showing eligibility for relief.
Almanza-Arenas found that:
Q 1: Cal Veh Code 10851 is not truly divisible as a crime involving moral turpitude, because a jury is not required to unanimously agree that the intent was to deprive the vehicle's owner permanently as opposed to temporarily; and
Q 2: Even if the statute had been divisible, the BIA was wrong to apply the Young rule because in Moncrieffe the Supreme Court effectively overturned Young. Therefore, where a statute is divisible, a noncitizen meets his or her burden of proving eligibility for relief if an inconclusive record of conviction is before the immigration judge.
Now the Ninth Circuit en banc will hear Almanza-Arenas. The bad news is that at this point the panel decision is vacated and the Young burden of proof rule applies. This is bad, but not a surprise -- it was expected that the court en banc would review the question.
The ambivalent news is that a likely, although not guaranteed, outcome of the Almanza-Arenas en banc review is that the court will find that Veh Code 10851 is not divisible - yay - and therefore that the Young issue is not before the court - boo. Again, Young only addresses who carries the burden when a statute is divisible.
The significant upside of this result would be that it could cement the Ninth Circuit's ruling in cases like Rendon v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1077, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2014), that divisibility requires jury unanimity on statutory alternatives. There the Ninth Circuit held that under Descamps a statute is not divisible unless (a) the statute literally sets out the different elements, phrased in the alternative ; (b) at least one, but not all, of the alternatives would trigger the removal ground at issue; and (c) (the great requirement) in order for these alternative statutory phrases to be "elements" rather than mere means to commit the offense, there must be law requiring a jury to unanimously decide between the alternatives in order to find the defendant guilty. The sua sponte request for rehearing en banc was rejected in Rendon, but with dissents, including one by Judge Kozinski on the mysterious footnote 2 in Descamps (782 F.3d 466).
If the Ninth Circuit en banc were to use Almanza-Arenas to upheld the Rendon jury unanimity interpretation, that would further nail down the victory for our side. The Almanza-Arenas statute, Veh Code 10851, presents a clear example for the court to address.
The downside would be that the court en banc well might rule that because the statute is not divisible it should not reach the Young issue, which would leave Young standing until it can be litigated another day. Or possibly the anti-Rendon faction would have enough votes to find that Veh Code 10851 is divisible, in which case it could get to the Young issue.
Young is a very harmful decision. Still, a good reading of Descamps/Moncrieffe/Rendon, etc. would mean that fewer and fewer statutes are held divisible, and therefore the amount of cases where Young even comes into play decreases commensurately.
For more discussion of these decisions and questions, see ILRC advisory "How to Use the Categorical Approach Now" at http://www.ilrc.org/resources/how-to-use-the-categorical-approach-now ;
