"[W]e agree with the respondent's contention that pursuant to the Court's decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder, there is "a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility," that the State of Delaware would apply its Assault in the Second Degree statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime of violence. See id. at 1684-85. Thus, we are not persuaded by the appellate arguments presented by the DHS, and affirm the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the respondent's 2012 Delaware Assault in the Second Degree conviction does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under either 18 U.S.C. § § 16(a) or (b), and a conviction for an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the Act. As such, we concur with the Immigration Judge's conclusion that the DHS could not meet its burden of proof as to the respondent's removability by clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence, and find that he properly terminated these proceedings." - Matter of Turou, Oct. 4, 2013, unpub. [Courtesy of the Immigrant Refugee & Appellate Center.]
Hats off to attorney Gautam Jagannath and Emily Abraham of Oakland's Social Justice Collaborative!