CORRALES NAVARRO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-01No. No. 19-70467

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings, finding that the conviction relied upon cannot support the removability charge.

Jose Luis Corrales-Navarro, a Mexican national, challenged a removal order based on a conviction for hindering prosecution under Arizona law. Immigration authorities argued this conviction qualified as an aggravated felony related to obstruction of justice, making him removable. However, the court determined that the Arizona statute at issue is the statutory version of the common-law crime of being an accessory after the fact, which does not require an ongoing proceeding and therefore does not categorically match the federal definition of obstruction of justice used for removal purposes.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether hindering prosecution under Arizona law constitutes an aggravated felony involving obstruction of justice
Whether a state statute mirroring accessory after the fact requires an ongoing proceeding
Categorical match between state obstruction statutes and federal immigration removal grounds

Procedural posture

The petitioner sought judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's removal order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Luis Corrales-Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision finding him removable. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Whether a crime is as an aggravated felony is a question of law subject to de novo review. Jauregui-Cardenas v. Barr, 946 F.3d 1116, 1118 (9th Cir. 2020). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Corrales-Navarro was charged with removability based on his conviction for hindering prosecution under Arizona Revised Statutes (“ARS”) § 13-2512. The agency sustained the charge of having been convicted of an aggravated felony offense relating to obstruction of justice. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). However, ARS § 13-2512 is the “statutory embodiment” of the common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact and does not require an ongoing proceeding, see State v. Johnson, 215 Ariz. 28, 156 P.3d 445, 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (ARS § 13-2512 is “the statutory embodiment of the distinct, independent, common-law offense of being an accessory after the fact.” (internal quotation marks omitted)), and as a result the sole charge of removability against Corrales-Navarro cannot be sustained, see Valenzuela Gallardo v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1053, 1069 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding California Penal Code § 32, accessory after the fact, is not a categorical match to the generic offense of obstruction of justice because it “encompasses interference with proceedings or investigations that are not pending or ongoing.”).

We remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this order. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that the BIAs decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).

Corrales-Navarros motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.