Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
Department of Justice
A 206-738-790
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.
Sincerely,
Don.nL c
WlA)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Geller, Joan B
Guendelsberger, John
Userteam: Docket
A 206-738-790
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Sincerely,
Dowu.., C
tl./V1..)
Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Pauley, Roger
Geller, Joan B
Guendelsberger, John
Userteam:
Cite as: Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
'
Date:
NOV 2 8 2016
APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Marie L. Perella Hadden, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF OHS:
Kris K. Stoker
Assistant Chief Counsel
CHARGE:
Notice: Sec.
212(a)(6)(A)(i), I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i)] Present without being admitted or paroled
Lodged: Sec.
APPLICATION: Remand
The respondent has appealed the Immigration Judge's decision of January 13, 2015, which
incorporated by reference an oral decision previously rendered on December 16, 2014, sustaining
the charges of removability. The Department of Homeland Security has submitted a brief in
opposition to the appeal. The respondent has also submitted a motion to remand on the basis of
a change in law. The appeal will be sustained and the record remanded for further proceedings.
The Board reviews an Immigration Judge's findings of fact under the "clearly erroneous"
standard, and reviews all other matters including questions of law and issues of discretion
de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l{d)(3)(i), (ii).
The respondent sustained two relevant criminal convictions in Ohio in 2014. The first was
for Obstructing Official Business in violation of OHIO REVISED CODE 2921.31(A), and the
second was for Menacing in violation of OHIO REVISED CODE 2903.22(A). The Immigration
Judge concluded that both of these convictions were for crimes involving moral turpitude, which
renders the respondent ineligible for post-conclusion voluntary departure in addition to rendering
him removable wider section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(D. The respondent contends that neither of these convictions qualifies as a
crime involving moral turpitude.
We disagree with the Immigration Judge that OHIO REVISED CODE 2921.31(A)
categorically constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude. This statute provides that no person
"with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any
authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or
Cite as: Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
With respect to the respondent's conviction under OHIO REVISED CODE 2903.22(A), the
record reflects that the respondent's sentence was only 30 days and the maximum possible
sentence for this conviction was less than six months. OHIO REVISED CODE 2929.24(a)(4).
Therefore, even if this conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude it would
nonetheless fall within the petty offense exception. See section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Accordingly, the respondent is not removable under section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act. We
will therefore remand this matter for a determination regarding the respondent's eligibility for
relief from removal, and accordingly enter the following orders.
ORDER: The appeal is sustained.
FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
foregoing opinion and for the entry of a new decision.
2
Cite as: Julio Ledesma Moreno, A206 738 790 (BIA Nov. 28, 2016)
impedes a public official in the performance". of that official's lawful duties. An individual may
be convicted under this statute for acts which do not necessarily include moral turpitude. See,
e.g., State v. Stayton, 709 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998) (sustaining a conviction under
section 2921.31(A) for placing coins in several expired parking meters as a police officer was
about to write citations for the vehicles). Additionally, this statute is not divisible such that we
can apply a modified categorical approach. Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013).
Therefore, we conclude this conviction is not a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
File: A206-738-790
In the Matter of
)
)
)
)
IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS
ISSUES:
'r
Appear was marked and admitted as Exhibit No. 1. The 1-261 was marked and
admitted as Exhibit No. 2. Additionally, respondent's Record of Conviction was marked
A206-738-790
elected not to pursue relief from removal, this Court will deny the request for post
conclusion voluntary departure and issue an order that he be removed to Mexico.
ORDERS OF THE COURT
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent is found removable as charged under
INA Section 212(a)(6)(A)(i) and found removable under INA Section 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent's application for post-conclusion
voluntary departure is denied, and the respondent is hereby ordered removed to
Mexico.
A206-738-790
THOMAS JANAS
Immigration Judge
good moral character pursuant to INA Section 101(f)(3). As such, as the respondent
'
..
J,
/Isl/
Immigration Judge THOMAS JANAS
A206-738-790