Background
Petitioners Sotero Rivera-Mendoza and Martin Leon-Briviesca challenged denials of immigration relief by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Rivera-Mendoza sought cancellation of removal after a conviction for child neglect under Oregon law, while Leon-Briviesca faced removal after a conviction for cruelty to a child under California law. Both petitioners 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 supports reading the phrase child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment as a single category that includes child endangerment. The court found that the statute requires a mens rea of at least criminal negligence and an actus reus of placing a child in a situation likely to produce bodily or mental harm. The court also held that the statute applies to defendants who are not the child’s parent or guardian.
What it means going forward
Non-citizens convicted of state offenses involving child endangerment, even without actual injury, may now be found removable or ineligible for relief if the offense requires at least criminal negligence and places a child in a likely harmful situation.