Hernandez v. Lynch

Fifth Circuit

Hernandez v. Lynch

823 F.3d 279, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8198, 2016 WL 2586184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 4, 2016

DocketNo. 15-60067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 823 F.3d 279 (Hernandez v. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hernandez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 279, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8198, 2016 WL 2586184 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Omar Alberto Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, was determined ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) after an immigration judge concluded that his conviction for deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code § 22.05(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which applied the “realistic probability” approach to hold that deadly conduct was categorically a CIMT and dismissed the appeal.¹ For the reasons explained in Mercado v. Lynch, 14-60539, 823 F.3d 276, 278-79, 2016 WL 2586169 (5th Cir. May 4, 2016), we hold that the BIA applied the incorrect standard in analyzing whether Petitioner’s conviction constitutes a CIMT. We reverse and remand for the BIA to analyze Petitioner’s convictions under the minimum reading approach.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Omar Alberto Hernandez, a citizen of Mexico, was determined ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C) after an immigration judge concluded that his conviction for deadly conduct under Texas Penal Code § 22.05(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which applied the “realistic probability” approach to hold that deadly conduct was categorically a CIMT and dismissed the appeal.¹ For the reasons explained in Mercado v. Lynch, 14-60539, 823 F.3d 276, 278-79, 2016 WL 2586169 (5th Cir. May 4, 2016), we hold that the BIA applied the incorrect standard in analyzing whether Petitioner’s conviction constitutes a CIMT. We reverse and remand for the BIA to analyze Petitioner’s convictions under the minimum reading approach.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 F.3d 279, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8198, 2016 WL 2586184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-lynch-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack