9th Cir.

ISRAEIL GUZMAN- MALDONADO v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

February 14, 2024 ·23-9 ·Published ·Andrew D. Hurwitz · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit held that a conviction for armed robbery under Arizona law constitutes a categorical aggravated felony theft offense under federal immigration law. Consequently, the petitioner's petition for review of his removal order was denied because his state conviction necessarily included all elements of generic federal theft.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 3:45

Israeil Guzman-Maldonado, a Mexican citizen and lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty in 2019 to three counts of armed robbery under Arizona Revised Statutes section 13-1904(A). He received concurrent eight-year prison terms on two counts and probation on the third. In 2022, an immigration judge ordered him removed, classifying the conviction as an aggravated felony theft offense and two separate crimes involving moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, and he petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that his state conviction did not match the federal definition of an aggravated felony theft offense.

The court employed the categorical approach to determine if the Arizona statute matched the generic federal definition of theft. Generic federal theft requires three elements: (1) a taking of property or control over property, (2) without the owner's consent, and (3) with the intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership. The court analyzed Arizona's armed robbery statute, which requires the defendant to take property from a person or their immediate presence against their will, using or threatening force while armed with a deadly weapon. The court concluded that the Arizona statute necessarily encompasses all elements of generic theft because it requires a taking against the victim's will, satisfying the 'without consent' element. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the statute covers consensual takings, noting that the Oregon statute in a prior case was broader because it included theft by deception, whereas Arizona robbery strictly requires taking against the will. The court also rejected the argument that the statute covers theft of services, clarifying that the robbery statute criminalizes the taking of 'property,' not services. Since the imposed sentence exceeded one year, the conviction triggers removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

The Board of Immigration Appeals' removal order stands, and the petitioner remains subject to deportation. The decision reinforces that armed robbery convictions in Arizona with sentences of one year or more are categorically treated as aggravated felonies for immigration purposes, leaving no room for case-by-case factual analysis regarding the nature of the taking.

Play