Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

CA10 on CIMT, Obstruction of Justice: Vaquero-Cordero v. Holder (unpub.)

October 01, 2012 (1 min read)

"Because the BIA’s decision does not demonstrate thorough consideration of petitioner’s case, offer sufficient support for its reasoning, and is inconsistent with its earlier pronouncements on crimes involving moral turpitude, the BIA’s decision is not persuasive and is not entitled to Skidmore deference. ... Under non-deferential de novo review, we conclude that the BIA erred in determining that petitioner’s crime involved moral turpitude.  As we noted previously, the Attorney General has interpreted “moral turpitude” as conduct that is “inherently base, vile, or depraved, and contrary to the accepted rules of morality and the duties owed between persons or to society in general.” ... Petitioner’s conduct involved “applying force to his front door to keep it closed while officers attempted to enter his home.” ... We disagree with the BIA’s conclusion that this conduct is “inherently base [and] vile.”" - Vaquero-Cordero v. Holder, Oct. 1, 2012, unpub.

[Hats off to Hakeem Ishola and Aaron Tarin!]


- Ishola-Tarin, PLLC