CA9 on CIMT, 237(a)(2); Matter of Cortez Canales Rejected: Lozano-Arredondo II

Lozano-Arredondo v. Sessions, Aug. 8, 2017 - "Jose Guadalupe Lozano-Arredondo was denied cancellation of removal based on his conviction for petit theft in the State of Idaho. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) concluded he was ineligible for cancellation because this conviction qualified as an “offense under” 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2). That provision says any alien who “is convicted of [1] a crime involving moral turpitude [2] committed within five years . . . after the date of admission, and . . . [3] for which a sentence of one year or longer may be imposed, is deportable.” § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). Lozano-Arredondo petitions for review, arguing (1) his petit theft conviction does not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude and (2) the crime occurred more than five years after his admission to the United States, so it does not bar him from cancellation. We grant the petition and remand.

First, we hold the record of conviction is inadequate to determine whether Lozano-Arredondo was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

... The second issue is whether Lozano-Arredondo is ineligible for cancellation of removal even though he committed petit theft more than five years after his admission to the United States. ... The BIA erred by treating § 1229b(b)(1)(C) as unambiguous at step one, and it has not yet exercised its discretion at step two. We therefore set aside the BIA’s interpretation of § 1229b(b)(1)(C) in Cortez Canales."

[Hats way off to Maria E. Andrade!]