Vasquez-Atempa v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit

Vasquez-Atempa v. Ashcroft

81 F. App'x 256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2003

DocketNo. 02-70359; BIA No. A78-241-324

StatusPublished

This text of 81 F. App'x 256 (Vasquez-Atempa v. Ashcroft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vasquez-Atempa v. Ashcroft, 81 F. App'x 256 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Samuel Vasquez-Atempa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals of the denial by an Immigration Judge of his application for cancellation of removal on the ground that his 1993 conviction for evading a police officer while driving under the influence, in violation of California Vehicle Code §§ 2800.2 and 23152(b), was a crime of moral turpitude. We deny the petition for review.

Even though driving under the influence is not a crime of moral turpitude, eluding the police while driving under the influence is different because it involves other criminal conduct that is contrary to accepted moral standards. See Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117, 1118-19 (9th Cir.2003); Matter of Lopez-Meza, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1188 (B.I.A.1999). A § 2800.2 conviction evinces intent to evade law enforcement and jeopardize the safety of persons and property. See People v. Dewey, 42 Cal.App.4th 216, 221-22, 49 Cal. Rptr.2d 537 (1996). Thus, considering only the statutory definition and the nature of the crime itself, Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993); Goldeshtein v. United States, 8 F.3d 645, 647 (9th Cir.1993), the behavior criminalized by § 2800.2 coupled with § 23152(b) necessarily involves moral turpitude.

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM

**

Samuel Vasquez-Atempa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the summary affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals of the denial by an Immigration Judge of his application for cancellation of removal on the ground that his 1993 conviction for evading a police officer while driving under the influence, in violation of California Vehicle Code §§ 2800.2 and 23152(b), was a crime of moral turpitude. We deny the petition for review.

Even though driving under the influence is not a crime of moral turpitude, eluding the police while driving under the influence is different because it involves other criminal conduct that is contrary to accepted moral standards. See Hernandez-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 1117, 1118-19 (9th Cir.2003); Matter of Lopez-Meza, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1188 (B.I.A.1999). A § 2800.2 conviction evinces intent to evade law enforcement and jeopardize the safety of persons and property. See People v. Dewey, 42 Cal.App.4th 216, 221-22, 49 Cal. Rptr.2d 537 (1996). Thus, considering only the statutory definition and the nature of the crime itself, Grageda v. INS, 12 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1993); Goldeshtein v. United States, 8 F.3d 645, 647 (9th Cir.1993), the behavior criminalized by § 2800.2 coupled with § 23152(b) necessarily involves moral turpitude.

PETITION DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 F. App'x 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-atempa-v-ashcroft-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack