Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)

8/12/2019 Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)

1/12

PULDO-GOMEZ, BENITOA019-987-183CE 1705 E. HANNA ROADELOY, AZ 85131

Name: PULDO-GOMEZ BENITO

m

Executive Oce r Immigration Revew

Board ofImiration AppealsOce of the Clerk

57 eehurg Pike Sute 2F/s Cuc Vrga 2 24 I

HS/CE Oice of Chief Counsel - EAZP Box 25158oenix, AZ 85002

A019-987-183

Date of this notice 6/27/2012

Enosed s a copy of the Board's decsion and order in the above-referenced case.

Enlsue

Pane Members:Guendelsberger, Johnulln Hu auey Rger

Sncerey

Dnna CarrChef erk

Cite as: Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit www.irac.net/unpublished


2/12

'

US Depnt f JusticeExeutive Oce Imgation Revew

Fa Churh, inia 224

Fie: A0 8 183 y, Arizna

Decson of e Bod oflmigaon Appeas

ate: JUN 2 7 01

In re BNIT PUIGMZ aka Ben Pid aka Beny Mniker aka Beit Pidaka Gmez Benit Mnier aka Gmezbenit Mniker

RMVA PRCINGS

APPA

N BHAF F RSPNN: Pr se

N BHF F HS:

CHARGS:

miniqe J ParkAssistnt Chief Cnse

Ntice: Sec 23(a)(2)(A)(iii) &N Act 8 USC 122(a)(2)(A)(iii) -Cnvicted f agavated ny der sectin 01(a)(43)(G) f te Act

APPCATIN: einatin

Te resndent a native and citizen f Mexic nd a a erment resident f teUnited States since Marc 1 as ed a timey aea f an mmiatin Jdges Marc 2012

decisin In tat decisin, te mmigratin Jdge denied te resndents reqest t terminaterceedings and nd the resndent remvabe as carged bsed n is recrd f cnvictin(x 2) s t is 2010 Caiia cnvictin r nd te at wit rir wic e mmigratinJdge nd t be an agavated feny te ense s dened nder sectin 101 (a)(43)(G) f temmiatin nd Natinaity Act 8 USC 10 (a)(43)(G) n additin aing exressed n fearf ersectin r trre if reed t Mexic (r at 22) te Immiatin Jdge deteined thatte resndent ad nt estabised is eigibiiy r y reief r rtectin m remva Terecrd w be remanded t te mmiatin Cr r er rceedings in accrdance wt tisinin and te enty f a new decisin

Te Bard reviews an Immigratin Jdges ndings f ct incding ndings as t te

credibiity f testimny nder te cery ernes" stndard See 8 CFR 0031(d)(3)(i)Matter ofR-S-H-, 23 &N ec 62 (BIA 2003) Matter ofSH 23 &N ec 462 (BA 2002) Tead reiews qesns f aw discretn d dgmen d a ter isses n aea f Immigratin Jdges decisin de nv ee CR 1003 (d)3)ii)

1 Te recrd reects tat n Nvember 16 2010 the resndent was cnvicted in e SerirCrt f Caia Cnty f s ngees r te ense f Grand e At wit Prir inviatin f CL PL CODE 6665 d sentenced t a te f imrisent f 2 yes (x 2)



3/12

A0 8 183

e esndent caenges te Iiain Jdges ndings as t is emvabiity Secicay,e esndent cntends at te eament f Hmeand Sec (S") fed t mee itsden f rf t shw at is 20 0 Caia cnvictin r Grd Te At wth Pr invian f C PE CODE 6665, cnsted agavated ny te" ense as denedin secn 101(a)(43)(G) f te Act s t srt he cge f emvabiiy nder

sectin 23(a)(2)(A)(iii) f te Act See 8 CR 12408(a) (he brden is n e HS, t sw byce d cnvincing evidence ta te esnden is emvabe); see also Woodby v. INS385 US 26 (66) n de nv eview, we aee with te esndent's aeae cntenin atthe ecrd f cnvictin sbmied by te S in tis case is inscient estabis eresndent's remvabiiy by cear and cnvincing evidence s as t meet e eqisie brden ff nde te state See sectin 240(c)(3)(A) f te Act 8 USC 122a(c)(3)(A)

Unde e Act, an agavaed feny" incdes a te ense (incding ecei f senrey) r bgay ense wic te term f imisnment is at east ne yea"Secin 101(a)(43)(G) e Act We nte at rsant t Bard and in Cicit ecedens, ate ense" nder secin 01(a)(43)(G) f te Ac cnsiss f e takng f, execise f

cn ve, e wt cnsent wenever ere is crimina intent t derve e e f tegts d benets f ersi, even if sc deivatin is ess than tta r eent"Matter of GarciaMadruga 24 I& ec 436, 440 ( 2008); see also Mater of VZS22 I& ec 1338 ( 2000) United States v dal, 504 3d 102, 0 ( Ci 200) (en ban)

Te Caiia states tat ndein te resnden s cnvictins at isse ee vide inerinent ar as ws:

CAL. PENAL CODE Prior felony theft convicton involving vehicle

(a) ve ersn w, aving been evisy cnvicted f a feny viatin f

Secin 085 f te Veice Cde ny gand e invving an ambie invian f sbdivisin ( d) f Sectin 48 e sbdivisin (3) f Sectin 48, as tasectin ead r t being amended by Sectin 4 f Cater 25 f te States f 13, feny nd e invving a mtr veice as dened in Sectin 415 f e VeiceCde any ae, as dened in Sectin 630 f te Veice Cde, any secia cnsctineqiment, as dened in Secin 565 f te Veice Cde, any vesse, as dened inSectin 2 f e Habrs and Navigatin Cde in viatin f me Sectin 48, any viatin f Secin 46d egdess f wete nt e esn actay sered a isn te tse enses, is subsequently convicted ofany ofthese oenses sabe nised by imrisnmen rsan sbdivisin () f Secin 110 r tw, tree, years, a ne f ten tsand dars (0,000), bt e ne and te imrsent

(emasis added)

CAL VEHILE COE 08 Theft and unlawfu drivin or taking of a vecle

(a) Any esn w dives takes a veice n is e wn, wit te cnsen f eer eef, and w intent eier t eanenty temaiy derve te wne teeff is e tite t r ssessin f te veice, weer wt r witt inen t stea eveice, r any ersn w is a ary accessry t r an accmice in e diving

2



4/12

.

A 87 183

unauthorzed takig or steaing, is guity of a pubic oense and, upon conviction tereof,sha be punished by imprisonment in a county ai r not more th one year or psuantto sudivision ( of Section 70 of the Pena Code or y a e of not more tha vethousan doars ($5,000, or by both the ne an imprisonment.

s noted by the Caiia cours CL. PEL CODE 666.5, is paced in a portion of the PenaCode deaing wth ehcement of sentence and oter matters reating to pnishment, ather thanwith denition of substantive oenses. See People v Young 285 Ca.Rp. 583, 585(Ca.Ap ist., . Thus, the Caiia cours have concuded that CL. PEL CODE

666.(a creates ony ehanced punishent r repeat oenders, not a new substantive oenseSee People v arcia 132 Ca. p.2d 64, 6 Ca.A 2 ist.2003 Consequenty, in this case,as CL. EL CODE 666.5 does not ene asubstantve oense but rather provides r enhacepuishment remised on the respondent's ror conviction r a ony vioation of C. VELECODE 085(a we must deteine wether the record suppors ning tat the responent'sconviction in vioation of CL. EL CODE 666.5 quaies as a the oense" agavated feonyuner section 0(a(43(G of the Act, by examining the resonent ror feony vioation of

CL. ELE CODE 085(a.

The Immiaon Judges cites to the decision of the inth Circut in S v Rvera658 F.3 073 ( Cir. 20 in support of his concusions. owever athough the cases are simiin some respects (e tey both dea wth Caiia the sttutes a the subsequent apication ofsentencing ehancement provisions tey are nonetheess distinguishabe an do not warrant ese resut. The cour in v Rvera a feera sentencing case, considere the agavate onythe oense rerence in 8 U.S.C. 101(a(43(G wth regars to a conviction r petty he invioation of CL. PEL CODE 484(a, a misemeanor hat carries a sentence of not more thansix months in the county jaisee CL. PE CODE 7(a, 40 that wen viewe in conjunctionwi the appication of the reciivist sentencing provision n in C. PEL CODE 666 canincrease the te of imrisonment to sixteen mons or two years as it i in that cse. SeeC. PEL CODE . The Rvera cour apying e Unite States Supreme Cou's ecision inUnted States v Rodrquez 553 U.S 377 200 which had reversed that court's earier decision iUnted States v Roquez 464 .3 172 9 Cir 206 (oding tat the reciivist enhancementcoud not e considered in determining wheter the denant's prior drugtracing convictionsconstituted a serious drug oense, concude tat because te reciivist sentence does reate to thecommission of the repeat oense d is ceary part of the sentence prescribed by aw a recidivistsentence may be consiered in eteining whether a pror conviction quaies as a predicateoense." See v Rvera supra at 1076 citing Unted States v Rodrquez supra at 38286.Neverheess the Rvera cour un tat [t]he ct tat [the dendat's] etty the convictions

under C PEL CODE 484(a d 666 satis te at east one year' sentence requirement of8 USC. 10(a43(G oes not, however end or inqui.. [w]e must sti address the issuewheer suc a conviction constitutes a predicate the oense tat may be deeme an aggravatedon Id n tis regr the Rvera cour consiere tat pursunt to its prior decisions a pettthe conviction under C PEL CODE 44a 666 is not a categorca matc to the dera e f i n i t i o n o f a [ n [ a g g r a v a t e f e o n ] t h e f t o f f e n s e . " S e eCarrloJame v oder 572 F.3 747 750 9 Cir. 29 quoting Unted States v CoronaSanchez 21 F.3 120 205 9 Cir 2002 en . Thus the Rvera court ha to appy temodie categorica aproach to the juiciay-noticeabe ocuments sumitted in e record so as

3Cite as: Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)


5/12

, '

A9 987 83

to eteine that, in hat case, the recor of coniction clearly and unequiocaly [established thathe deendants petty the coniction was based pon his plea o gil to condct that constitutesa generic the oense, d ecause this wa a the oense coniction r whch the te ofimpsoent was at least one ye, it alied r [edera sentencing eancements" Id at 78.

Similly, within the jursiction o the inth Circit, the oense dened by CL. VEE CODE 85(a oes not qali categorcaly as a the oense" under section (a(43(G of the Actecause it encompasses accesso er the ct" oenses See Unite States v al supraAccordingly, the reshold question bere s is whether the respondents crime qalies a theoense ner the modied categoical approach," that is, whether the recor contains a chgingdocument, ten plea aeement, scrpt o plea colloqy, any explicit ctual nding by the aljuge to which e responent asented" reecting that he was conicted of iolating 85(a asa prncipal rather th accesso aer he ct. at 86-89; Penuliar v Muey528 F.3 63 (9 Cir. 28 see also Arteaga v Muey 5 F.3d 94 947 (9 Cir. 27(istinguishing Unite States v. al supra an holing that a iolation of 85(a is a theoense" agaated elony where the coniction recor establishes that e alien was conicted as

a prncipal.

this instance, the HS presente a ceried copy of an absact o judgement reecting that therespondent ha been conicte on oember 6, 2, of the oense o Grand The Auto wih Prorin iolation o CL. PEL CODE 666.5, base upon his plea to Count 2 in the Felony Complaint(xh. 2. The recor also inclues a ceried copy of the Felony Complaint (A66369 chargingthe respondent in Count 2 wih the cime of Unlawl riing or Taing of a Vehicle with Prior, iniolation of CL. PE CODE 666.5. oweer, whereas the Felony Complaint cites to therespondents preious coniction r a lony iolation of C VEE CODE 85(a onMay , 29, as required by the statte, the Felony Complaint proides no rther infoationconceng the basis o he 29 coniction and whether the respondent was conicte as a pincipalather than as an accessory aer the ct The S id not present a copy of the anscrpt of herespondents plea colloqy as to he responents 2 coniction r the oense o Grand TheAuto with Prior, tat could her clari the ctual basis r e plea Moreoer, the S presenteno documentation conceng the responents 29 coniction r a felony iolation ofCL. VEE CODE 85(a, which undergirs he 2 Calia coniction r the oensealleged in the otice to Appear ( -862 (xh. , in suppor o the charge o remoabilityTherere, in contrast to the situation adressed by he inth Circuit in S v. Rivera supra anupon whch the Immiation Jge bes his opinion, there is here no categorcal match to hepreicate the oense," an we hae no uiciallynoticeable ocuments" in the recor with regarsto the responents 29 coniction r a lony iolation of C VEE CODE 85(a, so as

to apply the moied categorcal in this insce"See Unite States v Sican

6 F.3 963, 96768 (9 Cir. 2 (en ban (quoting Unite States v Snellenberger548 F.3 699, 7 (9 Cir. 28

Coneently, uner the conrolling auhoty of the inth Circuit, and applyng the moiecategorcal approach to the cour ocuments n in the respondents record of coniction (xh. 2,we are uable to conclude that the HS esablished by cle and conincing eience that theresponent is suect to remoal, as charge, r hang been conicted of agaate lon theoense" uner section (a(43(G of the Act ase on his 2 Caiia coniction r the

4



6/12

<

A 7 83

oense of Grand e Auto with Prior in vioation of C PEL CODE 666.5 SeePuliar Muksey supra; see also reaga v Muksey supra erere we nd it appropriatende the circumstances to remd the record to te Immiatio Court r her proceedings inaccordce wi tis opinion d the eny of a new decision

Accordingy te owing orders wi be enteedRR e appea is sustaied.

FURTR R: e record is remaded to te Immiation Cout r er proceedingsin accordce with tis opiion ad te eny o a new decision

FR T B

5



7/12

NITED STATES DEPARTMNT OF JUSTCE

EXECTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGTON REVIEWITED STATES IMMIGTION COURT

ELOY ARZONA

Fie A019-98783 March 1 201

n the Matter of

BENITO PLIDO-GOEZ N REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

ESPONDENT

CRGS

ALICATIONS:

O BEHF OF

O BEF OF

Section 37 (2)A i aggravateddefned in 101a (43) o the Act

None

RESPONDNT: PRO SE

DHS: DOMINIQU PARK

ORAL DECSION OF THE IMMIGRTION UDGE

POCEDU ISTORY

eony s

0c:

c n: = >: :

;g-. )

;-1r _)"o

"1r.a


8/12

he Deparen furhe a eges ha on Noveer 6, 200, he

responden as convced n he Caorna Superor Cour, os

gees Couny fo grand he auo h pror n voaon o

S econ 666 of he Caorna ena Code and senenced o o

years' confneen. heefore based on hose a egaons, he

overnen chares ha he esponden s subec o reova

ro he Uned Saes pursuan o N Secon 237a} 2} } }

as an aen ho afer hs adsson has been convced of an

aggravaed feony as dened n Secon a} 43 (g, a hef

ofense or hch a er of prsonen of a eas one year

was posed

VB

he responden aded hs aenae, as e as hs

saus as a afu peranen esden, b dened he a egedconvcon and senence, and conesed hs eovab y as

charged

n suppor of he conesed aegaons and charge o

eovaby, he eparen subed porons of he record o

he espondens convcon, hch as aded no evdence

whou objecon as xhb 2. hose docuens ncude he

absrac of jden, as e as he sxpage feony copan

he absac esabshes ha he esponden as convced

prsuan o hs p ea of cun o of he chargng docuen, a

aon of Secon 666 5 of he Caorna ena Code

descrbed on he absrac o judgen as grand he auo h

A 09987-83 2 ach , 202


9/12

(

.

io hat onition took lae on ovembe 16 1 ad

elted i a entene o oineent of two yea.

Cont two of the hain doment the felony

omlaint allee that the eondent omitted the ime o

"nlawl divin o takn o vehle with io i iolation

of enal Code etion a elony i that the eodent

"did lawflly dive d take etai vehle to a Nia

athide liene nmbe FR43 then in thee the eol

oety of Ramie naio withot the onet o and with

itent eithe emanently o temoily to deive the owe

the aid owne of title to and oeon o aid vehile

Alyin the inth Ciit eedet deiion of U.

. Riea 1 WL 356 (9th Ci 1 whih held that a

ioltion o etion 666, etty theft with io with a enteneo moe than one yea old be an N etio ( (43 (

"theft ofene nde odi ied ateoil analyi of the

eod of onvition that eod etablihe that the

oniton wa o the noonenl takin o oety. n

thi ae the eondet wa onvted of etion 666.5 o the

Calionia enal Code whih like etion 666 iminalize a

theft ofene whee a io onvition eit oweve CC

etion eiialy elte to theft involin a moto

vehile altho etion i oe eifi i nate

oin on moto ehile wheea etion 666 i boadly

foed he Cot doe not ee the ditintion a iiiant

A1998183 3 Mah 1 1


10/12

the apicat o S v Rvea

Baed a modied categoca aays o the

espdet' s ecd o covco ad apyg S v Rvea,

he C ids that he espodets cvict s a

aggavaed ey de Secto (a) (4) (g) asmch a it

ivove e ag o opey ad ot evce, ad heeoe,

the chage o emovabiy ed by the epatmet agas the

edet at N Sect 2 (a) () () (i) s

saied by cea ad covicig evidece

R

he epodet degaed Meco a the coty

emva shd ha be eceay ad eesed pecc ea

et t hat coty cogabe de Sect 08 o

4 (b) () o the ct o ce the Coveto gast

oe, am a e esodet as bee coviced a

aggavated ey a a a emaet ede, he s

stattoy iegibe o caceato o emva as a a

emaet edet at o N Secto 240 () (a), a e a

otay deae sat o N Sect 40 () (b)

ddtoay he espodet od ot be abe eek

eadstet o hs sats psat to N Sect 24 (a)

amch a o ave o a admisby hch d be

eqed a a et hi cvicti avaabe t him

de Secto 2 (h) as a pemaet ede h ha eed a

aggavated ey covco

09-988 4 Mach 202


11/12

\

Thee en n ms ee ch he

esnden es t e stty ee he C sees n

tene t de e esndent emed m he nted

Ses Mexc

ORDER

RPONDEN S RY ORDRD emed m the

ned Sttes Mexc n he che eeced n the Ntce

Ae

A099818 Mch 1 0


12/12

CERTIFICATE PAGE

I hereby certify that the attached proceeding before JDGE

RICHARD A. PHELPS, in the matter of:

BENITO PULIDO-GOMEZ

A019-987183

ELOY, ARIZONA

is an accurate, verbatim trancript of the recording as provided

by the Executive Off ice for Immigration Review and that thi i

th original trancript thereof for the file of the Executie

Office for Immigration Review

MICHAEL PERLMAN (Trancriber)

DEPOSITION SERVICES, Inc

ARIL 4 2012

{ompletion Date

Benito Pulido-Gomez, A019 987 183 (BIA Jun. 27, 2012)

Documents