9th Cir.

ROBERTO DIAZ-BOYZO V. TODD BLANCHE

July 23, 2026 ·17-72894 ·Published ·Bumatay · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging a removal order based on a state assault conviction. The court held that assaulting a spouse in the immediate presence of a minor child constitutes a crime of child abuse under federal immigration law.

Background

Roberto Diaz-Boyzo, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to felony assault in the fourth degree under Oregon law for battering his wife in the immediate presence of his minor children. The Department of Homeland Security charged him with removability under federal law, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order.

The court’s reasoning

The panel agreed that the Oregon statute was overbroad but found it divisible under the categorical approach. Using the modified categorical approach, the court determined Diaz-Boyzo was convicted under the specific provision covering assaults witnessed by a minor child. The court reasoned that committing an assault in a child’s immediate presence places the child in real danger of bodily or mental harm, meeting the federal standard for a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.

committing an assault in the immediate presence of a child places the child in real danger of bodily or mental harm

Diaz-Boyzo v. Blanche, 17-72894 (9th Cir. July 23, 2026)

What it means going forward

Immigration authorities may now rely on this ruling to deem similar state assault convictions involving children as grounds for removal without needing to prove actual harm to the child.