In re Silva-Trevino

11 Cited authorities

Moncrieffe v. Holder
569 U.S. 184 (2013) Cited 1,338 times 15 Legal Analyses
Holding that sharing marijuana not an aggravated felony
Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder
560 U.S. 563 (2010) Cited 967 times 16 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts should look to the “conviction itself,” rather than a crime or sentence with which the defendant “could have been” charged or assigned, in determining whether a previous conviction is an aggravated felony under the INA
Jean-Louis v. Att'y Gen. U.S.
582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2009) Cited 81 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding the "realistic probability" test inapplicable where the statute's "elements ... are clear, and the ability of the government to prosecute a defendant under [the statute] is not disputed"
Prudencio v. Holder
669 F.3d 472 (4th Cir. 2012) Cited 36 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting that "police reports . . . . are designed only to permit a determination of probable cause"
Fajardo v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
659 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) Cited 35 times
Explaining that application of the categorical approach is proper for determining whether an alien was "convicted of . . . a crime involving moral turpitude" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(l)
Bobadilla v. Holder
679 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2012) Cited 33 times
Finding the petitioner's conviction of false identification to a police officer in violation of Minnesota state law to not be a CIMT when applying the modified categorical approach
Silva-Trevino v. Holder
742 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 2014) Cited 30 times
Concluding that petitioner had waived his argument by failing to adequately brief the issues
Olivas-Motta v. Holder
746 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2014) Cited 17 times
Holding that Silva–Trevino was not entitled to deference because “[t]here is nothing in the substantive definition of a CIMT” that allows courts to “look to conduct that an alien ‘committed’ to determine the acts he has been ‘convicted of’ ”
Mata-Guerrero v. Holder
627 F.3d 256 (7th Cir. 2010) Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Granting alien's petition for review “[b]ecause the Attorney General's determination of the appropriate methodology is controlling, and because the Board did not use that methodology in Mata–Guerrero's case”
Section 1182 - Inadmissible aliens
8 U.S.C. § 1182 Cited 9,711 times 66 Legal Analyses
Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"
Section 1103 - Powers and duties of the Secretary, the Under Secretary, and the Attorney General
8 U.S.C. § 1103 Cited 818 times 4 Legal Analyses
Granting the Attorney General power to "establish such regulations" and "review . . . administrative determinations in immigration proceedings"

In re Silva-Trevino

11 Cited authorities

Holding that sharing marijuana not an aggravated felony

Holding that courts should look to the “conviction itself,” rather than a crime or sentence with which the defendant “could have been” charged or assigned, in determining whether a previous conviction is an aggravated felony under the INA

Finding the "realistic probability" test inapplicable where the statute's "elements ... are clear, and the ability of the government to prosecute a defendant under [the statute] is not disputed"

Noting that "police reports . . . . are designed only to permit a determination of probable cause"

Explaining that application of the categorical approach is proper for determining whether an alien was "convicted of . . . a crime involving moral turpitude" under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(l)

Finding the petitioner's conviction of false identification to a police officer in violation of Minnesota state law to not be a CIMT when applying the modified categorical approach

Concluding that petitioner had waived his argument by failing to adequately brief the issues

Holding that Silva–Trevino was not entitled to deference because “[t]here is nothing in the substantive definition of a CIMT” that allows courts to “look to conduct that an alien ‘committed’ to determine the acts he has been ‘convicted of’ ”

Granting alien's petition for review “[b]ecause the Attorney General's determination of the appropriate methodology is controlling, and because the Board did not use that methodology in Mata–Guerrero's case”

Holding deportable aliens who have been convicted of "crimes involving moral turpitude"

Granting the Attorney General power to "establish such regulations" and "review . . . administrative determinations in immigration proceedings"