Martin Leon-Briviesca v. Todd Blanche

Holding: The Ninth Circuit held that 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) encompasses child endangerment offenses requiring at least criminal negligence and conduct likely to produce bodily or mental harm, and that the statute applies to non-parents.
Standard: Traditional tools of statutory interpretation
Vote: Affirmed by a panel consisting of Judges Callahan and Bumatay, with Judge Bumatay concurring in the judgment.
Practical effect: Non-citizens with state convictions for child endangerment that involve criminal negligence and create a risk of harm to a child are now categorically deportable or ineligible for cancellation of removal under the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the federal statute.

The Ninth Circuit held that the federal immigration statute covering crimes of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment includes child endangerment offenses where no actual injury occurs. The court further ruled that such crimes require at least criminal negligence and an act that places a child in a situation likely to produce bodily or mental harm.

Background

Petitioners Martin Leon-Briviesca and Sotero Rivera-Mendoza challenged denials of immigration relief by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Leon-Briviesca was found removable based on a California conviction for cruelty to a child. Rivera-Mendoza was found ineligible for cancellation of removal based on Oregon convictions for child neglect. Both argued their state convictions did not fall within the federal definition of crimes of child abuse, neglect, or abandonment.

The court’s reasoning

The panel applied traditional tools of statutory interpretation following the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which rejected Chevron deference. The court concluded that the structure of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the phrase ‘child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment’ supports a unitary concept that includes child endangerment. The court determined that the term ‘neglect’ inherently implies a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Furthermore, the court held that the actus reus is satisfied by conduct that creates a substantial risk of harm to a child’s health or welfare, consistent with interpretations by the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits.

What it means going forward

Non-citizens with state convictions for child endangerment that involve criminal negligence and create a risk of harm to a child are now categorically deportable or ineligible for cancellation of removal under the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the federal statute.