Sylvia L. Espra, Esq.

Law Ofce of Sylvia L. Espar

334 Pepper Lane., Suite 105
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Name: GOLT, DHYANA ADERNE
t .S. Deparment of Justice
Executive Ofce fr Im igation Review
Board qf Immigation Appals
O.ice of the Clerk
J/07 Ltsbt' Pk Sitt 20
Falls Ch1. rrnia 101
OHS/ICE Ofice of Chief Counsel LVG
3373 Pepper Lne
Las Vegas, NV 89120
A045296-96
Date of this notice: 6/122012
Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision ad order in the above-referenced cae.
Enclosur
Panel Member:
Cole, Paticia A.
Sincerely,
Donna Car
Chief Clerk
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Dhyana Aderne Goltz, A045 296 896 (BIA Jun. 12, 2012)
r
U.S. Deparent of Jutce
Eeve Ofc f Imgon Rview
Dcision of te Bo of Jmgo Apl
Falls Cu Viia 201
File: A045 296 896 - L Ve N
I re: DHY AA AE GOLTZ
I RMOVA PROCEEDIGS
APPEA
ON BEHF OF RESPONDE: Sylvia L. Ep Esquir
ON BEHF OF DHS:
CH OE:
Chsa Pake
Assist Chef Couel
Dae:
Notice: Se. 237(a)(2)(E)(I),
I&N Act [8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)()] -
JUN 11 201Z
Convicted of crme of domeic violence, slkng, or cild abu, chld
negle or child abadonent
APUCA TON: Tenination of proceings
Te rspondent is a natve ad citn of Brl ad a lawl penent rident of te Unit
States. I a deision dt September I 6, 20 Io. the Im gtion Judge ternad te remova
proceings upn concluding tht the Deaent ofHomelad Secuty ("OHS") ha not psented
cle ad convincing eidence that te rdent w subject to removal a a alien wo b ben
convicted of a cre of dometic violenc in violaton of section 23 7(a)(2)(E) of te Imgton
ad Nationalit Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(E)(I). Te DHS ha appee that decision. Te app
wlb dsmisse.
Upn de novo rview, we will afr the Imigton Judge's decison t teate tese
roval preings. We afl the Imgton Judge's fmding tt the evdence prnted by te
OHS is insfcient, ude the jusrce of the Board ad the United Stte Cou of Appls
fr te Nit Ciruit t estblis the respondent's rmovabilit. Spcifcally, for te ron ste
i te Im igion Judge's order, t evidenc of te conviction conising ofa te-page mu
order ad a chgng instent, doe not estlish tht te rendet's 20 cnvicton in Neva
w fr a crme of domestic violence (Ex. 2A-B. See I.J. at 3-12).
Firt, w afte Imigon Judge's deteriaton tht te cnvcton rord i ifciet
to show tat the rspondent was convicted fr a bater/domestic violence crme in violation of
section 200.481and200.485 of th Nevada Revised Statutes, a allege i the chg docuent
(x. 1). Altough the chgng iet in the record refet tat those setion of te Neva
statte were at issue in the Juy 2004 chage leved aganst the respndent (h. 2A), te minute
order conts no rfernce t te chgng inent or to ay spifc seton of the Nea s
in it varou prvision rfeing the rspondent's intial ple of not gut, ad ten guilt
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Dhyana Aderne Goltz, A045 296 896 (BIA Jun. 12, 2012)
.
:
A05296 896
(x. 28). A such, te hgation Judge propry fud the minute order inaeute t rfet
a cnviction asi uder sectons 200.481 ad 200.485 of te Nevaa stattes. Unie te eidc
desb in Retta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181 (9 Cir. 2010), a US v. Snlenberger, 548 F.3d
699 (9t Ci. 208), we do not consider te evidenc ofer b te DHS dung te cue of
tes rmoval preg to b sfcietly cle ad convincng to estblish te rnet's
rmovaiHt.
Fuenore, we also afte Im gation Judge's fndig tht even if te convicton ror
we fund to rfect te rndent's cnvcton uder seons 200.481 ad 200.485 of te Nevad
Revisd Sttte, te ror does not, uder a moe categorc aprach, esblish tat te
rndnt w convictd of a cre of domestc violenc. See l.J. 8-12. O appl, te DHS
eteively age ta te Imgto Judge icrtly fud tat te rcor w ideute t
estlish t te rsndent's convicton ase under section 200.481 ad 200.485 of the Nevada
stats. Ye te DHS does not speifcally presnt a arguent to chlenge te Immigaion
Judge's concluion tat a modifed ctegorical aalysis would not supr a fnding tat te
respndet's convicton contns te elements of a cre of domestc violeci.e., t te
convction w mae by te u of violent fr indicatve of a crme of violence. Cf DHS's
Brief.
.
I the asc of applicble Neva stte cu jusprdence, the Immigaon Judge prprly
aalogzd te elements of the Nevaa statut to a Califra sttei.e., setion 242 of te
Cifra Penal Cett h ben fu not to categorcally cntte a crme of violence
'"buse it ca b bad on te let touchg ad does not fal witn te feder defniton of a
cre of violence uder 18 U.S.C. J6a), whch ruis fr tat is acly \ioJec i n.,,
I.J. at 9 (citing Otega-Mene v. Gonle, 450 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9 Ci. 2006). Fuore,
bu the mnute orer laked ay rfence tat te gilt ple w teterd t the fts aleged
i te chagng iment, te rrd of cnvicton laked evidence t suppor a cnclusion t t
resndent's cnvicon-suig it was fr bater arsig uder setion 20.481 ad 200.485 of
the Nevaa sttes-ivolved te u of volent fre. I.J. at 11-12.
Acringy, te fllowng orer wll b enter.
ORDER: Te apis dissse.
- FOR OA
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
Cite as: Dhyana Aderne Goltz, A045 296 896 (BIA Jun. 12, 2012)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFICE FOR IMMIGRTION RVIEW
IMMIGRTION COURT
IN THE MATTER OF:
GOLTZ, Dbyana Adere
Respondent
On Behalf of the Respondent
Sylvia L. Espa, Esq.
3340 Pepr Le, Suite 105
L Vega1 Nevada 89120
3365 Pepper Lane Suite 20
Las Vegas, Nevada 89120
In Removal Proceeding
File No.: A045-296-896
Date: September 16, 2010
On Behalf of DHS
Chisia Parke
Assistt Chief Couel
Immigration ad Cusoms Enfrcement
Depaent of Homelad Se\t
3373 Pepper Le
L Vegas, Nevada 89120
DECISION OF THE IMMIGRTION COURT
CHARGE:
I. Summar
Setion 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of te Imigtion and NationJit Act (Act),
as aende.
Te Deaent of Homeland Secut (HS) ha chaged te respndent witb.rmovabilit
under section 237(a)(2)(E){i) of the Act. In suppr of this charge DHS contends the respndent ha
ben conviced fr the ofense of bater domestic violence. For the rasons statd herin. the
Imigation Cour concludes the recor of conviction does not establish a generc crime of domestic
violenc occurs. Accordingly. the setion 237(a)(2}E)(i) of te Act charge of removabilit is nol
sustined, and the rspondent's removal prceeding is terinated.
II. Background
Te respndent is an age 28 female. native. ad citizen of Brail who adjusted stats to a
lawl pnaent resident on Aprl 16, 2003. (Exh. \.)On Februar 10, 2010 the Depament of
Rt/ <_6-o

I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t


GOLTZ, Dhyata Aderpe A04S.296.96
Homelad Security (OHS) issued a Notice to Appa (TA) that chared the rspndent wth
rmovabilit puunt to section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of the Act. (Id.) In suppr of this removal chage
the NT A alleges that on Augut 31, 2004 the respondent wa convicte fr the ofens of bater
dometic violence, in violation of sctions 200.481 ad 200.485 of the Nevada Revised Stttes
(RS). {d)
At a master calenda heang convened on May 20, 201 o. the rspondent admite NT A
factul allegations 1. 2, ad 3; denied factual allegtions 4 ad 5; ad denied the setion
237(a)2)(E)(i) of the Act chare of rmovabilit. Subsequently bt paies have fled brefs
addresing this contested chage of rmovability.
111. Contete Removabilit
A. Burden of Proof
Secon 240(e)(2) of the Act prvides that ''the ten rmovable' mesA) i te cs of
a alien not adite to te United States, that the aJien is inadmissible uder stion 212, or (B) i
te c of a alien admitd t te United Stt. that te alien is de
p
rble under section 237 [of
the Act]."
A rspndent chaed wt removability uder section 237 of the Act wll b fud to b
rmovable if DHS prves by clea ad convincing evidence she is rmovable a charged. IA
240(c)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. 1240.S(a). No decision on rmovabiJit will b valid unless it is bae upn
rnble. subtia, ad probative evidenc. lA 24(c)3XA); Colorado v. Ne Melc, 47
U.S. 310, 316 (I 984)(the .. clear ad convincing evidence .. standa rquires a "abiding conviction''
on the pa of the fact-tnder that the t1th of a fact is "highly probable); Matter of Patel, 19 l&N
De. 774, 783 (BI 1988) (quoting Mauer of Carrubba, 11 I&N Dec. 914, 917 (BIA 1966) ("We
have defned clea and convincing evidence as "that degre of proof thoug not necessarly
conclusive, which will produce in the mind of the cour a fr blief or conviction, or as that degee
of proof which is mor tan a prponderace but less tha beyond a rasonable doubt."); Maller <f
E-M-, 20 J&N Dec. 77, 80 (BIA 1989) (''[W]hen something ha to be prved by clear ad cnvincing
evidenc, the proof must demonstrte that it is highly probably tre.").
B. Alleged August 31, 204 Conviction
Bfr addrssing whether a conviction fr the ofen of bater domestic violence, in
violation ofNRS 200.481 ad 200.485, qulifes a a cnviction under section 237(a)2)(E)(i)
of the Act, it frst is necessa to rsolve whether OHS has submited sutlcient prooftl establish
by clea and convincing evidence the rspondent actually ws convicted of this ofense.
Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 386 (9lh Cir. 2006)). "Tis is a factual deterination, not a
lega one. Vasquez-Martinez v. Holder, 564 F.Jd 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2009), citing, Cisneros-Perez,
supra; see also United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 121 I (9th Cir. 2002) (en bane)
2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

GOLTZ Dbyana Ademe
A052996
(noting the record must .. unequivocally establish[) that the defendat ws convicted of the
generically defned crime"); Re1u1a v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 20 l 0) (sae}.
In suppor of the claim that the respndent ha been convicted fr the ofens of bater
domestic violence, in violation ofNRS 200.481 ad 200.485, OHS submited a cerifed minute
order. This is a te-page dowent. At the top of each of the thee page is a "header displaying
biogphical infnation abut the respndent. Below the header a a vaiet of minute entries
detaling the prdw histor of the rspndents crminal case. For ince, te Juy 20, 20
minute ent indicates a crminal complaint wa fled that chare the rspndent with "bat
constituting domestic violence!' Below that is a minute entr fr August 9, 20 indicating the
resondent sige a aonishent of rgts fn ad entered a plea of not guilt. Te foUowing
August 31, 20 minute ent details that the respondent subsuently entered a ple of gilt.
It is noteworhy that the August 31g 204 minute entr does not indicte the precise crime
the respondent pied guilty to or the statute uder which she wa convicted. Perhaps the August 31.
200 minute ent. disclosing a plea of guilt; is intended to indicate that the respondent w
convicted of''batr constituting domestic violence, a previously referenced in the July 20, 2004
minute entr. But, his equally raonable to conclude that the August 3 l, 2004 "plea of gilty wa
enterd concrig a difernt crme tha the one rfernce in the July 20, 2004 minute ent. See
Uniled Sia/es v. Vdal, 504 F.3d 1072. 1088 (9 Cir. 2007) (en bane) ( .. Te proscuton need not
have frally amended the two counts in orer fr [the defendat] to have pled guilt to conduct
otber tan tat alleged in the Complaint."). Simply put, the August 31, 2004 minute orer fails to
expressly provide that the rsndent w convicted fr the ofense of batter dometic violence.
Accordingly, this minute order, rlating to the respndent's allege conviction of Augst 31, 200,
is incapble of establishing she wa convicted fr the ofens of batter domestic violence, in
violation of NRS 200.481 and 200.485, without rsring to reliance on a infernce.
OHS appaently contends te United Stats Cou of Appals fr the Ninth Ciruit's (Ninth
Circuit} decision in Retuta pnts just such an infernce. rn Retuta. te Ninth Circuit was fced with
the tak of deterining whether a "confsing minute order wa sufcient t establish that the
respondent wa convicted under section 11377{a) of the Califria Health and Safety Code. Afer
exaining tat minute order the Ninth Ciruit concluded the content did refe to the prcise section
of the Califria Health ad Safet Code charged and pied to by the defendat, ad this was
sufcient to estblish the existence of a conviction under the crminal statte at issue. Te Ninth
Ciruit us the fllowing ladmaks in Che minute order as a guide to naJysis:
The minute order ha bxes checked fr .. PLEADS," "GUILTY," ad DEJ
Grte." Under "VioJation., the orer states that "HS J J 3 77(A)'' w Count Two.
Te rcord contains the crimim complaintq which lists possession of f controlled
substnce in violation of 11377(u) of the Califria Health and Safet Code as
Count Two. One does not ned a defnition of te ters used to conclude that Retuta
pied gilt ad rceived a deferd entr of judgent (DE) fr violation of
3
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t


GOLTZ Dhyana Aderne A04S296-96
Caifria laws relating to the possession of a controlled substace.
Retuta. 591 F.3d at 1185.
Similaly, i United States 11 Snellenberger, 548 F.3d 69 (9th Cir.208) (en banc}, 1 the
particula minute orer fund to b reliable described te specifc charge that wa
p
ied to by the
defendat:
Te minute order is a printed fr bearing the nae of the cou a the tp, fllow
by the case caption. The bdy consists of numbered lines, each calling fr some
infration to b insee by chekng a bx or witing in a bla. Line 56 sta wt
a box tugh which an "X" ha be n daw; it rads '"Defendat
p
eronally
witdws plea of not gilt to coWt(s) :ad "1" is witten in te blank.
Line 57 als st wt a bx thug which a 'X" ha been drw, ad idctes
a plea of nolo contender to count l.
Sellenberger, 548 F.3d at 701.
The Snellenberger minute order additionally refernced the precis section of the Caifria
pal code fr which the rspndent was convicted:
PLEAS NOLO CONTENDERE WITH CONSENT OF DISTRCT ATOREY
... TO VIOLATION OF SECTION(S) 459 Penal Code (frt dege)
Snelenberger, 548 F.3d at 703 ap
p
. I.2
Unlike the minute order at issue in Snellenberger ad Retuta, te minute orer at issue in
the prsnt ths case maes no rference to the statutor citation fning the basis of the
rspondent's guilty plea. Nor does it indicate that the rspondent actually pied guilt to te ofens
of batter domestic violence. Rather, it is clear that only thrugh a infernce can i
t be concluded
the respondent entered of plea of guilty to the crme of bater domestic violence. Yet, as the
respondent corctly notes, the Ninth Circuit prohibits immigtion judges fom drwing such
infernces. Renteria-Morales v. M1ksey, SS I F.3d 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that
inferences ae inadequte to meet the goverent's burden of proof. Te law is clea that a rord
mut uequivocally establish the defendat wa convicted of the necessa elements of te generic
crime; mmight' simply can ot b enough," ad the court should not b "handed the task of
'While Snellenberger involved the modifed categorical malyicnl approach in a criminal sentencing cae,
the Ninth Ciruit in Retute found the Sne/enberr rationale to be applicable in detenining whether OHS ha
proven the existence ofa criminal conviction in an Immigation Cour rmoval proceding.
2The appndix in Snelberer includes the acral ima
g
e of the minute order relied on by lhe appellate
coun 10 esrablish te conviction.
4
* . ... .. ... ," r3..C.V. (
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

i
GOLTZ, Dhyana Adere A05-29.96
rading between the line." United States v. Sandoval-Venegas. 292 F.3d I 101, 1106, 1 10 (9th
Cir. 202) (emphais added).
Even if the minure orer prsently at issue established that the rspndent had pie guilt t
batter domeic violence, this doument ha a scond defciency in that it makes no rfence to the
stute at issue, prosribing bater domestic violence in Nevada, under NR 200.485. That t
July 20, 2004 minute ent contin te label "batter constituting domestic violence" neither curs
1hi prblem nor ha some other imprce fr the Immigtion Coun. See Unied States v. Grisel,
488 F.3d 844, 848 (9l Cir. 2007) (en bae) ( .. Te Cour in Taylor rejeted the use of state
stattor label of crmes.'' (emphais added}; United States v. Rob/e-Rodigez. 281 F.3d 900,
93 (9th Cir. 2002) ("In detenining whether state convictions ae ag avated felonies, cours have
consistently (avored substance over for, lookng beyond the label atached to the ofses by
state law ad considerng whether the ofenses substively meet te sttor defnition of
'aggavatd felony."') (emphasis added); Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcrof, 321 F.3d 883, 888 (9th Cir.
2003)("Te difculty is that the conviction's label only goes so far; the convic?ion itelf mu me
the generc defnicion of thef no matter what the state calls it."} (emphais added).
Bad on abiguit in te minute order at issue, the Imigtion Cour deteines OHS has
faile to establish by clea and convincing evidence that the respndent ha ben convicted fr te
ofense of bater domestic violence in violation ofNRS 200.481 ad 200.485, a alleged in te
N A. This shorcoming alone is sufcient fr te Imigrtion Cou to terinate the rspndent's
removal proceeding.
C. Section l37(a)(2)(E)i) of the Act
Even if it could be conclude that the minute orer at issue establishes the rspondent was
convicted of bater domestic violence, in violation ofNRS 200.481and 200.485, OHS has not
proven that such a conviction qualifes a a crime of domestic violence under section 23 7(a)(2)(E)(i)
of the Act.
I. Crme of Dometic Violence Analtical Framework
Te Ninth Ciruit prviously has held that a conviction qualifes a a crme of domestic
violence if ay and all conduct prosribd by the criminal statute of conviction falls within tt
categor. See Toktlyv. Ashcrof, 371 F.Jd 613, 620 (9th Cir. 200) (citing Talorv. UniledStates.
495 U.S. 575, 576 (1990)). If the statute fring the bais of the conviction does not categorclly
prohibit domestic violence," then the statute is considerd "divisible" and the modife categorcal
approach is applied. See id. Under this apprach Immigration Cou must examine a "nrw,
spci fed set of documents that are pa of te rord of conviction" to deterine whether the spcifc
ofens commited qualies a a bais fr rmoval. Id. Immigtion Cou may not "look beyond
the rcr of conviction itself to te paicula fcts underlying te convicdon" when applying te
modifed categorcal apprach. Id. Te documents that may b exained under the modifed
5
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
'
'

i
GOLT, Dhyana Adere A04S296896
categorical apprach include the criminal chaging document. u well as the judgment of conviction
ad any writen plea agement or tscript of a plea colloquy. Shepard v. United Stales. 544 U.S.
13, 16 (2005); Taylor, 495 U.S. at600; Ferandez-R1liz v. Gonzales.466 F.3d 1121, 1132 (9th Cir.
2006) (en bane). Te Nint Circuit has frher addrssed this topic by claifing that a Immigtion
Cou may not look beyond the rord of conviction to acerain te .. domestic" element of a
ofense uder setion 237(a)2)(E)(i) of the Act. C1s-Perez, 465 F.Jd at 392; To/lly, J 7 J F.Jd
at 623 ("(B]oth the BI ad this cou mut aalye the 'domestic' rquirement of the conviction
in th sae mne as te rest of the ofensenamely, by applying te categorcal and modifed
categorical apprach.").
Te Suprme Cour's recent decision in Nihaan l'. Holder, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (209) altered
te Taylor/Sheprd analysis, ad this has resultd in a two-tk apprach fr aalyng whether a
crimina conviction contitutes a removable ofense. under this approach, [the Imigtion Cou)
must frst decide wheter a rquirment uder a generic crime is an 'element' of the
generc crime
instead of sply a descrption of te 'paicula circumstces' in which the ofender committed
the crme on a spcifc occaion. If the rquirment is an 'element [the Imigation Cou applies]
te Talor apprach; if the rquirment is 'circumstance spcifc,' [the Imigation Cou] ... use[s]
"fndaentlly fair procedus" to deterine whether the ofenders crime stisfes the desrption
of the generc ofense." Kashima v. Holder, F.3d 2010 WL 302501 7, at 9 (91h Cir.
- -
2010).
A stted above, a crme of dometic violence under section 23 7{a)(2){EXi) ofthe Act exists
where the rndent ha been convicted of(l) of a ofense pusuat to 18 U.S.C. 16 that ha
ben commit (2) against a prteted individul. Tokatly. 371 F.Jd at 619 { .. In ore to detin
that [the alie] wa convicted of a 'crme of domestic violence' under sction 237(a)(2)(E)(i). we
would have to conclude that his crme was not only one of'violence, but aso tat the violence wa
'domesic' wtn the mening of that section.").
Tere is no doubt the "ctegorical approach" descrbed in Taylor appropriately is applied t
deterine if te rspondent's conviction constimtes an ofen under 18 U.S.C. 16. Nihvan, 129
S.Ct. at 2299 ("[We made clea that cous mu use the .. categorcal metho" to deterine wheher
a cn\iction fr 'atempte burglar' w a conviction fr a crme that ... 'involved conduct that
presnts a srious ptential risk of physical inu to aother."').
As a consquence of Nihaan, and a previously rcognizd by the Unite Sttes Cou of
Appeals fr the Seventh Ciruit (Seventh Ciruit), it then bcome necssa to apply a
"circumstace speifc" analysis to detennine whether a crime is .. domestic" within the meaing of
seton 237(a)(2)(E)(i} of te Act:
Although 16(a) dirts attention to the stattor element, 237(a)(2)(E) of the
immigtion laws depars fm tat model by maing the "domestic" ingdient a
real-fense charcteristic. Tus it dos not mater fr purses of federal law that
6
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
t
-


GOLTZ Dbyana Adere A04Sw296-896
the crme of batter in Indiaa is the se whether the victim is one's wife or a
drinking buddy injurd in a bar om. The injur to a "domestic partner" is a
requirement baed entirly on federl law ad may be prve without rgrd to the
elements of the state crme. Substatial evidence, indepndent of Floress admission.
shows that te victim was his wife. Wen classifing the state ofense of batter for
puses of l6(a). however, the inquir bgins ad ends with the elements of the
crime.
Flores v. Ashcrof, 350 F.3d 666, 670 (7t Cir. 2003) (citations omited}.
Tis use of the circumstce spifc approach, to aerain whether ter is a domestic
element ataching to a crme of violence, also is infne by the rcent United Stte Supreme Cou
decision in United States v. Haes, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 1082 (2009). cited in, Nihman. 129 S.Ct at
2302. In Haes the Suprme Cou held that a misdemeaor crime of domestic violence, in te
context of a conviction fr possession of a frean by a prson convicted of a misdemeaor crime
of domestic violence under 18 U .S.C. 92 J (a)(33)(A). dos not reuir the predicate-fense statute
to include, a a discrte element, the existence of a domestic rlationship bteen ofender ad
victim." Id at l 084. Rather, in Haes the Supreme Cou endorsed a circumstnce spcifc t of
analysis identical to that ariculated in Nihawan:
Most sensibly rad, then, 921 (a)(33 )A) defnes "misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence" aa misdemeaor ofens that (1) "has, a an element, the u [of fre),"
ad (2) is comite by a pern who h a spcifed domestic relationship wt the
victim. To obtain a conviction in a 922(g){9) prosecution. the Govenent mu
prve beyond a reaonable doubt that the \'ictim of the prdicate ofens wa the
defendat's curnt or fner spouse or was relate to the defendat in anothe
specifed way. But that relationship, while it must be established, need not be
denominate an element of the predicate ofense.
Id at 1087 (emphasis added).
Accordingly. te Immigtion CoW curently concludes that o aalysis of the "domestic
element" of te rspondent's conviction, allegedly resultng in a conviction describd in setion
237(aX2)(E)(i) of the Act, ned not b rsticted to the rord of conviction. Wer neessa, the
Immigration Cour may adopt other "fdentlly fair procedures in a frher efor to detenine
wheter a domestic element exists. See Kawashima, 2010 WL 3025017, at 9 ('Given that in
Nihawan. the Supreme Cou relied on such a stipulation to conclude that a v a . pror crme was an
'agvated felony under subsection (M)(i), we canot conclude that ... rliance on such a
stipulation in this cs wa imprper."); Maller q{Ve/aquez, 25 I&N Dec. 278, 280 n.1 (BJA 2010)
( .. [WJe note that the domestic or family rlationship ned not b o element of the prdicte ofens
to qualif as a misdemenor crime of domestic violence under this section."); see also
Ag1ilar.TurcoJ' v. Holer, 582 F.3d at J l IO (Bybee, J dissenting)( Although the [Suprme] Coun
did not explan the spcifc contours of fundamentlly fair procdurs, it noted that the Talor and
7
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

GOLTZ Dhyaoa Ademe
Shepard fraework was un ecess in such a aaJysis.").
2. Crime of Violence
A04529696
Mindfl of the analyical fraework set out abovet the Imigration Cour frst must
detenine whether the rspndentts conviction qualifes as a "crme of violence!' Te tr crme
of violencen is defned a fllows:
(a) an ofense that ha as a element te use, attmpted u, or thratened use of
physica fte aganst the prson or proprt of aother, or
(b) any oter ofense that is a felony and tat. by its natur, invoJves a substantial rsk
that physical fre against the person or propery of aother may b used in the
cour of commitig the ofense.
18 U.S.C. 16 (emphasis added).
Notably, it remains unclea whether the ten .. flony .. contained in 18 U.S.C. 16(b) rfer
to rhe feder or a stte defnition. See Ortega-Mendez v. Gonalts, 450 F.3d 1010, 1015 (9th Cir.
2006) (recgizing te lack of clait in the Ninth Ciruit's pror decisions regaing the issue).
Compre Alatter of Velasquez, 25 I&N De. 278, 280 (BIA 2010) ("'[BJecaue the respondent's
ofense is not a felony under Feder Jaw, it canot constitte a crme of violence under 18 U.S.C.
16(b)."), Mater of Martin, 23 l&N Dec. 491, 493 (BIA 2002) ("[]eause te ofense is
punishable by a maimum ter ofimprsonent of I yea, it is . . . a misdemeaor fr purss of
federa law [ad) . . . cannot constitute a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b), whic is
confne to feJony ofenses b it ters."), and loper v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 48 (206) ('7o
deterine what felonies migt qulif, the Cour natully looks to the defnition of crmes
punishable as felonies under te [Controlled Substances Act). If Congess had meant the Cour to
look to stte law, it would have fud a much less misleading way to make its point."), with Singh
v. Ashcrof, 386 F.3d 1228, 1231 n.3 (9h Cir. 2004) (using state law to detn ine whether a ofense
is a "felony" uder I 8 U.S.C. 16(b)).
Regadless of which rle is rJied on, a conviction fr bater domestic violence in violation
of NRS 200.481 and 200.485 is not a flony under either federl or state law. Se NRS
200.485( a) 1) (indicating that a person who has been convicted of a frl ofense of domestic bater,
puuat to NRS 30.018, is guilt of a misdemeanor ad shall b sentenced to '[i]mprsonent i
the city or count jail or detention facilit for not less tha 2 days, but not mor tan 6 months.");
18 U.S.C. 3559(a) (unless otherise indicated a federal ofense is a felony if ad only if it is
punishable by a ter of imprisonent exceeding one year). It fllows that the Immigration Cour
is prite to aayz respondent's conviction only under the stadar set fr in 18 U.S.C.
16(a).
i. Categorical Approach
8
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t


GOLTZ Dhyana Aderne A05296.96
OHS, in its May 24, 2010 bref, prprly concedes that a conviction fr bater domestc
violence, in \'iolation of NS 20.481 and 200.485, is not categorcally a crme of domestic
violence under setion 237(a)(2)(E)i) of te Act. Supporing tis OHS psition is the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Ortega-1Wendez. supra. and the Supreme Cour's more rcent decision in Johnson v.
United States, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (2010).
In Ortega-Mendez the Ninth Ciruit held that simple batter, in violation of Cal. Penal Code
242, dos not categoricly constitute a crme of violence becuse it c b bd on "the let
touching" ad dos not flwithin te federl defnition of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C.
J 6(a), which requires fre tat actuaJJy is violent i natur. Oega-Mende, 450 F.3d at I 016. Te
Supreme Cou's rnt decision in Johnson similarly ha rslved wheter a conviction fr simple
bater, uder seion 78.03( I )(a) of t Florida Anotated Statues, 3 cateorcally ca b considerd
a violent crme under 18 U.S.C. 924e)(2)(B). Tis federl statut defnes a violent felony a
"
any
crme punjsable by imprsorent fr a te exceedjng one year," ad wher that felony also: "(i)
ha a a element the use, attempte ue, or thrtened us of physical force against the pron of
aother; or (ii) is buglar, aron, or extonion, involves us of explosives, or otherise involves
conduct tat prsent a serous ptntial risk of physicl injur to another.'' As te Suprme Cou
ha noted, J 8 U.S.C. 16(a) "is ver simila to 924(e)(2)(8)(i), in that it includes ay felony
ofens whch "'has a a element te ue . . of physical fre aganst the prson or prop of
aoter." See Johnson, 130 S.Ct. at 1270-71. Simila to the Nint Circuit's deision in
O1ega-Me11dez, the Supreme Cour conclude in Jolnon tat .. in the contet of a statutor
defnton of 'violent felony, the phse 'physical frce' meas violent frcthat is, fre capable
of causing physic pin or inju to another pn." Id. at 1271. Hence, in Johnon the Sueme
Cou held that the defendat's conviction fr simple bater wa not a "violent felony" becaue
under Florda stale Jaw the crme of bater includes ay intentional touching. Id
In contrn to the previous atention given by vaous cours to Ca. Penl Code 242, cours
have not cons the phe "fre or violence," a ud in NRS 200.481. Neverheless, a
compason dislose te text ofNR 200.481 is identic to Cal. Pena Code 242.
Calforia Penal Code 242 Nevada Rev. Stat. 20.41
"A btr is ay willfl and '''Bate' meas any willfl ad
ulal ue of fr or volence unlawl use of fore or violence
upDn the person of anoter." upn the prson of aother.
3Fla. Slat 784.03( I )(a) provides 1he following defnition for the ofense of simple bater:
The ofense of bater occr when a pron:
I. Actully ad intentionally touches or strkes anorher peron against te will of te other; or
2. lntentionalty cu bily hat to aother pon.
9
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t
.
.

GOLTZ Dbyana Adere A045296-96
Te Immigtion Cou rcognizes that under Gonzales v. Duena-Alvare, 549 U.S. 1 83. 1 88
(2007). to "fnd that a srate statute crates a crme outide the generc defnition of a listd crme in
a federl statte reuirs more tha the application of legal imaginaion to a state sttte's lagage.
It ruirs a ralistic prbabi lit, not a theretical psibilit, that the State would aply its satute
to cnduc that falls outside the generc defnition of a crime." Duena-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 1 93.
Still, the Ninth Ciruit has gone on to point out that "Duena-Alvarez ha not fndamentally
chaged the categorical approach . . . . " Nunez .. .. Holder, 594 F.Jd 1 1 24, l J 29 n.2 (9 Cir. 20 J 0).
Indee "hen the text of te sttte exprssly includes in its defnition that which [isl exprssly
excluded fom the generc, fder defnition.' te statute is overly inclusive." United States v. Vdal,
50 F.Jd 1 072 (91
h
Ci. 2007) (en bae) (quoting Grisel. 488 F.3d at 850). Likewis, "[whena] stte
statute explicitly defne a crme more bradly tha the genere defnition. no "legal imagination
is rquird to hold that a ristc prbability exists that the state wi II apply its statute to conduct that
falls outide te generic defnition of the crime. Te state statute' s greater breadth is evident fm
it text .... Id (quoting Grist/, 488 F.3d at 850) (interal cittion omited).
Tough Nevada state cus have not interrted the phe "fre or violence contained in
NRS 200. 481 , Nevada state jwsprdence requirs that such statuts be "constred acording to
the faimpr of its ters." NRS 1 93 .030; Ortega-Mendez v. Gonales, 450 F .3d 1 0 I 0, 1 01 6 (9h
Cir. 2006) ('[l]n detenining te catgorc rch of a st crme, [the Immigtion Cou]
consider[s] not only the laguage of te state sttute, but also the interrttion of that laguage i
judicia opinions.). In accordace wt the Stte of Nevada's established method of statutor
interretation, te Immigation Cour initially must frst atempt to disce the plain meaing of the
statute in question. See Stale v. State. Employees Assoc . 1 02 Nev. 287. 289, 720 P.2d 697. 698
( J 986) ("Wen a statute uses wors which ha\- a defnite and plain meaing the wors will rtn
that meaing unless it clealy appas that such meang was not so intended.") Berr v. State. 21 2
P.3d 1 085. 1 095 (Nev. 2009) ("(When a ofense ha not ben defned by the Legislatu, we
geerly lok to the comon law defnitions of the rlated ten or ofens.").
To tis end, in the State of Nevada, NRS 1 .030 requirs tat "e common law of Englad,
so faa it is not rpugnant to or in confict with the Contitution ad laws of the United States, or
the constitution ad laws of this state. shall be the rJe of decision in all the cour of this stte. By
comparison, under common law the .. element of ' frce {could] be satisfed by even the slightest
ofensive touching. Johnson, 1 30 S.Ct. at 1 270-71 ; Singhv. Ashcrof, 386 F.3d 1 228, 1 233 (9h Cir.
2004) (quoting 3 Blacktone Commentres on the Law of England 1 20 (Univ. of Chcago Prss e.
1 979)) ("Te lea touching of another's prson wilflly, or in anger, is a batter; fr the law canot
dw the line beteen difern deges of violence, and therefre totlly prohbits the frt ad
lowest sge of it: ever ma's prson bing sred, ad no other having a rght to meddle with it,
in . . . the slightst maner.') (brackets omined). Perhaps even mor insightfl is the recognition that
the State of Nevada has copied most of the content of its Constitution ad statutes frm "Califria
sources. See State v. Milain, 3 Nev. 409 ( 1 867) cwe have copied most of our constittion and most
of our laws fm the sister Stte of Califria ... ). Becau NRS 200.481 and Cal. Pena Coe 242
both use the identical phrase "fre or violence; and that pha then ha be n interreted by the
State of Califria to requir only the hleat touching; there indeed is a realisic probabilit that only
l O
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

i
GOLTZ Dhyana Ademe
the "leat tuching" is necesr to convict a defendnt ofbaner in Nevad. See OtegaMendez.
supra; Maller o/Snudo. 23 I&N Dec. 968, 972 (BI 2006). Becaus the plain language ofNRS
20.48 1 , like the Cal. Penal Code '42, requires only a 'slight touching." this Nevada statute is not
categorically a crime of violence uder 1 8 U.S.C. 1 6(a).
ii. Moie Categorical Approach
As occu here, when the statute fring the bais of a conviction prosribs conduct gater
tha a generic crminal ofense, a Immigtion Cou then employs a sond step modifed
categorical aalytical apprach. Shepad, 544 U.S. at 1 6. Under the modifed categorcal apprach
the Imigtion Cou is limited "to 'a narw, spcifed set of documents tat a pa of te record
of conviction. '" S-Yong v. Holder, 60F.3d 1028. 1 036 (9th Cir. 201 0) (quoting Toktly, 371 F.3d
at 620). "Tt is to sy, the modifed ctegorcl approah hews t the categorl. It is a nr w
exception. Te set of noticeable docuents includes the indictment (but only in conjuncton with
a signed plea agreement), the judgment of conviction, the minute order flly douenting te
judgment, jur instctions, a sige guil t plea or the transcript fm the plea prceing.' Id
(citing Snellenberger, 548 F.3d at 702) (emphais added).
In the instont cae DHS ha submited a State of Nevada crminal complaint ad a minute
orer t suppor te contntion tat the rspndent was convicte of a crime of domestic violence,
under section 237(a)2)(E){i) of te Act. Te criminal complant alleges tat te rndent
did the ae thee wUflly ad uawlly use fore or violence agin or upn the
pern of hs spuse, frer spue, ay other peron to whom he is relate by blood
or marage, a prson with whom he is or was actually residing. a peron wt whom
he ha had or is having a dating relationship, a pron wit whom he ha a child in
common. the minor child of any of those persons or his minor child, to-wit: ALDO
SAM. by stiking the said ALD SAM on the head with her had ador telephone.
However, it prsently is nessa to rcogize that tis crminal complant is .. isufcient
alone to prve tbe facts to which (the respondent) admitted. "Penullar v. Muksey
,
528 F.3d 603,
61 3 (9t Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). A indicated above, tis is because a chaging docuent is
only sufcient under the modifed categorical apprach "in conjunction with a siged plea
agement." SYong, 600 F .3d at 1 036. Even in that narw prissible cirumstce. Ninth Ciruit
law is clear that ''a plea of guilty admits only te elements of the chage necess for a conviction . .
,
Malta-Espinoza v. Gonales, 478 F.3d 1 080. 1 083 n.3 (9 Cir. 2007). Conseuently, a plea does not
automatically admit additional fct that are alleged but not required to sustain a conviction. Id;
United States v. Caares, 1 21 F.3d 1 24 1 , 1 246-7 (9th Cir. 1 997) {holding that "allegations not
necessar to b prved fr a conviction . . . are not admited by a plea").
In this case OHS ha not submited a guilt plea in conjunction wt the crminal complaint.
Rther, OHS ha submitte merly a abiguous minute order tt fails t dislos wheter the
repondent was convicted "a charged in the criminal complant." Such an anomaly ha ben
1 1
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t


GOLTZ Dbyana Ademe A04529696
descrbed a a panicula concer by the Ninth Ciruit:
We have repeatedly held that charing documents a insufcient alone to prove the
facts to which [a defendant] admitted.
[W]hen the ror of convicion comprses only the indictment and te judgmentg
the judgment must contain the critical phrase "a charged in the Inforation."
Vdal, 50 F .3d at 1087-88 (citations and quotations omitte) (emphais added); Fregozo v. Holder,
576 F.3d 1030, 1 00 (91 Cir. 209) (emphaizing pst-Snellenberger that the Boar mu obsre
Vdal 's as chared" rquirement); United Stales v. Velaco-Medina, 305 F .Jd 839, 852-53 (9th Cir.
2002) (chging pper contain te elements the goverment sets out to prove. but do not by
themselves establish the elements the rspndent admitted in a guilt plea; the goverent must
prove that by a plea te respndent admitted all of the elements of the generic crme); see also
United States v. Parker, 5 F.Jd 1 322, 1 327 (9" Cir. 1 993) ("We hold that the sentencing cou may
not rly upn the chaging papr alone i n deterining if a prior ju conviction w fr a 'violent
felony. We fher hold that tbe cour may not rel solel upon the charing instrment and
verdict for Jf the latter fal to refect the actual facts found by the jur in convicting the
defendant.") (emphais added).4
Baed on this line of caes, the Immigration Cou concludes that te rord of cnviction
is insufcient to rsolve wheter the rspndent's conviction at issue constitutes a crme of violence
under 18 U. S. C. 1 6(a). Given the failureofDHS to establish byclear adconvincingevidencethat
the rspndent's conviction is a crime of violence under 1 8 U.S. C. 16. it fllows that her
conviction does not qulif as a crme of domestic violence under section 23 7(a)(2}(E)(i) of te Act.
Accoringly, the fllowing order shall b entered:
IT IS HERBY ORERD that the section 237(a)(2)(E)(i) of te Act chage of
rmovability is NOT SUSTAINED.
4The OHS brief In this cae contends tat Re1111a has overled Vdal and its progeny. This argumen1 ls
unpuasive. The thre-judge panel in Retuta placed no rliace whatoever in Vdal. Retuta also wa not pnited
to ovemle the en bane deision in Vdal or any other decision of the Ninth Circuit. See Miler v. Gammle, 335 F.3d
889. 899 (9h Ci r. 203) (en be) (holding tat, in the absence of a interening Supreme Cour decision. only the
en bae cour may overle a decision b a thre judge panel). Of impornce Reuta did not concr utiliztion of
te moie categorical aalyical apprc. Instead. te sole issue in Retuta was whether a minue orer ws
sufcient to prve the existence of that alien criminal conviction. Renita, 591 F.3d at 1 1 84 (Rettn aues thnt the
minute order used to prove his 2002 conviction for possession of a conll led substance was insufcient to prove
the fact of hb tonvlction by the required clear, unequivocal, nnd convincing evidence standard bcause the minute
order contains several unexplained acronyms.") (emphasis added).
1 2
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t

I
GOLTZ Dhyana Ademe A04S296896
IT IS HERBY FURTHER ORERED that the respondent's removal preding b
TERMINATED.'

Ronald L. Mullins
Immigtion Judge
CERTIFCA T OF SERVICE
SERVICE BY: Mail (M) Persnal Serice (P)
TO: [ ] DHS [ ] Alien [ ] Alien's Atorey
DATE:
BY: Cour Stf
'A notice of appal must b fied with the Board of Immigtion Appals within 30 calenda days of t
isuance date of this deision. I rthe fnal date fr tling the notice of appeal occur on a Saturday. Sunday, or legal
holiday, Che time prio for fling will b extended to te next buines day. lfthe time prio expire and no appeal
ha been fled. this deision then bcomes fnal.
13
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
n
t

&

R
e
f
u
g
e
e

A
p
p
e
l
l
a
t
e

C
e
n
t
e
r

|

w
w
w
.
i
r
a
c
.
n
e
t