vera sama, a076 581 488 (bia july 17, 2015)

8/20/2019 Vera Sama, A076 581 488 (BIA July 17, 2015)

1/24

Parra, Alan MLaw Oices of Aan M. Parra1100 Wayne AvenueSuite 720Siver Spring MD 20910

Name: SMA VER

U.S Department of Justice

Executive Ofe r Immgraon Review

Board of Immigaton ApealsOce othe Cerk

5/07 Leesburg Pike, Sute 2000Fal Church Vrgna 20530

DHS/IC Oice of Chief Counsel - BAL31 okins Paza Room 1600Baltimore, MD 21201

A 076581-488

Dat of this notice 7/17/2015

ncosed s a copy o he Board's desion an orer in he above-rerece case.

Enclosure

Pane Members:lphu, Gy D.Cppy ich J

Sincerely,

Do ctDonna CarrChie Cerk

Userteam Dock

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visitwww.irac.net/unpublished/index/

I i g a e u

g e e A p p e a e e e ,

i a

e

Cite as: Vera Sama, A076 581 488 (BIA July 17, 2015)


2/24

SAMA, VERAA076581-488FCDC7300 MARCIES CHOICE LNFREDERICK, MD 21704

Name: SAMA, VERA

U.S Department of Justice

Executve Oce r Immgration Revew

Boad of Immigraion ApealsOce of the Cek

5107 Leeburg Pike, Sute 2000Fals Chc. Vgna 2030

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counse - BAL31 Hopkins Plaza Room 1600Baltimore, MD 21201

A 076581-488

Date of this notice: 7/17/2015

ncosed is a copy of he Board's decson i he above-rerence case. This copy s beingprovded o you as a courtesy Your atoey or representave has been serve with hsdecsion pursuan to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.S(a). f the atached decision orders tha you bereoved o the United ates or ars an mmigrao Jdge's decison ordern ha yoube removed, any petion r review of he aached decision ust be led with and recevedby he appropriate cort of appeals wihi 30 days of the date of the decisio.

ncosre

Panel Members:

Malphrus, Garry D.

Ceppy Michael Man Aa

ncerey

Dc CwDona CarrChef Cerk

Useream:

g g p p

,



3/24

. 1

U�S. Depatmen of JustceExiv O r Ii Rviw

Bd Al

Fl Chr, Vrg 20530

Fe: A076 581 488 -Baltore Dte: UL' l 7 2015

In re: VA SAMA ak. Ver Kasubika S .k ell Kusika S

REMOAL PROCEENG

APPEAL

O BEHALF OF ODEN: Alan M Pa, Esqre

AMIC C FOR SODET Meen A. Sweeney EsqreUnversity of aryld

ON BHALF OF H

CAG:

C Schoo of Law ion Clinc

Elizbet Ross EsqreMld Oc of the Public Defender

Cae Jonstonenor oey

otic: ec 237a)(2)(A ii) & Act [8 U..C § 227a2)Aii)] Convicted of agated lony

APLCATON: Teinton

e respondent appels o iaton dge's decsio ndn h removbe achd d ordering hm removed o e Uted tates 1 e eparent of oedSecty HS") opposes e respondents ppe The appea wl be stned d ereoval proceegs wil be terned

We review r ear eor e ings of t including e deterinton of rebi

e y the mmgrtio Judge. 8 CFR. § 003(d)3)i) We review de novo al oter issuesincudng eer te pies hve et the reevt brden of proo d isses of dscreon.8 C.F R. § 003 (d3)i).

1 e ion udg issued two decisions s ase Te rst dted J 6 205nd e respondent removabe as chged he secod dted Juy 28 205 incoorated

the rst decision noted at e respondent ws not seekng relief o reoval d ordered erespondent removed om e United Ses

I m m i g r a n t & R e

f u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e

n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r

a c . n e t



4/24

.

'

A76 8 88

The respondent is a native d ize of Zbia d a peent esident of heUnited Ses In 2006, the respondent was onvited f e in vioation of section 7-104 of hearyand Cmina Code d was sentened to a te f imsoment of 3 yes.

The isue on appe is whee e respondents onvictin endes m emovabe om theUnited States asa aien cnvited of agavated ony," ney a e oense" whih he te of imprisoment was at et 1 ye. ee setions 10(a)(43)(G) and 237(a)(2)()(iii) of the Imion d Nationaity At, 8 U.S.C. §§ O(a)( 43)(), 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Upon ode novo review, we mst onde at it does not (I.J. De. ded Jy 16, 205, at 6-4).See C.F.R. § 1003.(d)(3)(ii).

A me is a e oense" unde secon 0(a)(3)(G) of the At if it eqes a tng o,o exeise of oo over, oher's poey wiot onsent d wh the ma ent todeprive the owne of the rihs d benets of oneship. Matter of Garca-Madruga,2 I&N Dec. 436, 440-41 (BIA 2008); Castilo v Holder, 776 .3d 262, 267 (4h Ci. 205).To deide whete oense ts this denion, we st emo the categria aproah, whih reqies us to cs n the minimm condct th has a eaisc probabiliy of being prsectednde he stte of convition, er on the ts underg he respondent's pi

vioon of that se. Moncre v Hoder, 33 S Ct 678, 64-8 (203).

As noted, e esondent wa onvited de setion 7-104 of he Mayand Crimna Codeeee§ 7-104"). Whe he espondent commed his oese d sstained is conviti,§ 7-10 oned ve disete, sepatey tied, subsecons, each f ich dene a dieent type of imina odt onstutng he": (a) obnng r exeing norzed cono over prope; (b) obaining cono of popey by deeption; () possession of stoen propey; (d)obg ono of os, misaid or mseny deivered ppey; d (e) obtaing seies bydeeptin or iot onsent. Ten at its mmum, ths detion of the" is egoay

boade than he te oense" net bease it ides some ats, sc s ose descbed insubseons (b) d (e), in which propey is aqred wth consent tat wa denyobtained. Matter of Garcaadruga supra, at 440. Ths, e Immiion Jdge ropernd hat § 7-10 is not ategoriay agavated feny, d he pies have oneded the isse (.J. De. dated Jy 16, 2015, at 12-13; DHS's Brief at 12-13; Respondent's Briefat -5).

Aho § 7-04 does not dene a ategorca e oense," e Imion Jdgencuded hat it is a divisibe" ste vis--vis e ense" net, hereby wnga mdied ategori inqi into the eod of onvition (IJ De. dated Jy 6, 201,at 3-14). ee Descamps v. Unitd tates,_ U.S._, 133 S.Ct. 2276 (2013); Mater of Garcia Maru supra; Castillo v. Holder supra

e mmiion Jdge nd ate most simpe d na reading of he tex o§ 7-04sups he onsi hat e stte is divsibe io ve ateative ses of eemens ..It is, n t, hd to oneive of a ste dvided moe ey into ateate sets of eemes an§ 7-10 wth its e deneated d sepatey suied subsetons (a)(e)" (I.J. Dec. dedJy 6, 201, at 7). Upon de novo review, however, we oncde at § 7-04 is not adivisibe ste within the mening f Dscaps

2

g g p p

,



5/24

' I

A76 581 488

In Descamps the Supreme Cu cled hat oense is divisible s as t peit a mdied categorica inquiry ony if it conains disjctive sets f elements," moe onecombinn of ich cold supp a convictin. Descamps v nited States, supra at 221,2283. he Co held t e mdied categrical appoach i inapplicable when e crime ofwhich the den w convicted has a single, indvsible et of eleme." I t 2282.Ths,§ 7104 c be viewed as divisible only if each f its alteative sbseions denes adiscrete eleme" of e oee, with the te element" being dened a ct about

the crime that mst be nd by a jry, mously d beynd a resnable dubt." Iat 2290 (citing Richardson v nited Staes, 526 U.S. 813, 17 (1999)); see also Omargharibv Hoder, 775 F.3d 192. 1999 (4 Cir. 2014).

In § 7-104, the Ste f Myld bou varous therelated oenses togethe der nesto mbella in eo t avoid he sbtle dncns existed d had t be legedd proved to establish the septe crimes nde the er law." Stae v Manion 442 Md. 419,432 (Md., 2015). Each of § 7104's bsectins decibes a dieent and alteve version of

e e ee. nie States v Cabrera-Umanzor supra Howeer, he respndent'sconvicn is nt pecicaly r one f the ve oene. Fr exmple, the convicn recorddoes nt speci a secn, such a § 710(a).

e Myld cus have eld that § 7104 des not dene mutiple atonmus oensewith discrete elements; re, ·it denes single oense at my be cmmited severa ways.E.. Crispino v State 7 A.3d 1092, 1102 d. 2010) (discuing Rice v. Stae 532 A.2d 1357,1367 (Md. 1987)).) Thu, a Myld ju is peied to enter a gilty verdict gainst adend chged wit the s lng as all jrrs aee tt the in some w commied; the jurors need nt nimusly aee pon which of the te dend cmmited.Cardin v Sae, 533 A.2d 928, 93334 d. Ct. Spec. App. 1987).

As a pern c be convicted nder § 7-104 even if e jrs disagree as to the mer inwhich he cmmied the oense, it llws that the ste's varius subecti do nt denealteve elements" f a § 7104 oense he, ey merely decibe alteve mes" bywhch such oense may be cmmit. See Schad v Arizona 501 U.S. 624, 636 (1991)(pluraiy pinion) ([L]egisles eqenty enumerate alteative mes f cting acime withut intending t dene epate elemes or sepe crimes."); Richarson v UniteStaes supra at 817 ([A] federal jy need not away decide unanimously wich f seveal pssible sets f delying be cts mke p a picul element, say, which of several pssible me the defend used t comit element f the crime.") at is not sucient to mke e satte divisible. See Mater of Chairez 26 &N ec. 349, 353 (BIA 2014); Rendonv Hoder, 764 F.3d 1077, 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2014) (nding that the Cali bgl statewas indivisible becase the y need not aee n ich of e sstive oenes [, d or

pet lceny r y lony,] e defendt intended t cmmit," when he enteed e lcked vehce. T, 7104 is ndisible d e mion Judge i peclded om cnducting a mdied categcal inqury h mter.

In conclusion, we ae required to conclude at the oense dened by § 7104 is neiera categrical e ense" nder sectin 10(a)(43)G) of the Act nr divisible vis--vis e the ense cncept. Accrdingly, e DHS has nt established by cle d convincing

3

g g p p

,



6/24

A076 581 488

evidece t the respodent's convictio renders him removale s lie covicted of ggrvted lony No oer removal chges are pendg gnst e respondet d erere te proceedigs will be termed.

Accordgly te lloig order ll e etered

ORDER: Te ppel is susted, e Immition Judge's deciso is vcted d theremovl proceedigs e teted

�L U) �O -

4

p p

,



7/24

UNITED SAES DEPARMEN OF JUSICEEXECUIVE OFFICE R IIGRAION REVIEW

UNE SAES IIGRAION CURBALIE ARYAND

le: A076-58488

In the Matter of

Januar 28, 2015

VERA SAA)))

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDING

RESPONENT

CHARGES

APPICAINS

N BEHALF O RESPONDEN Alen Paa

ON BEHAL O DHS Kely Satos-e Jess

RA DECISION OF H IIGRAION GE

he espondent was issed a Notce to Aear on Octobe 7t 20.

Folowng a conseraton o al te evdence n te reco and the ments o both

sdes on reovablty te co d ssue a wrtten ecson on aary 6t 205

fdng tat t esondent as reovae as chaged nder te agravated feoy

cage at ecson s copoated here e espondent may be seekg to

reduce ths senence on he hef convicton. However, he responen's counsel was

not sre when ay acto o tat mght e coeted No cotnance as eqested

he espondent s not seeng ay elef rom emoval today e esondent oes

I m m i g r a n t & R e

f u g e e A p p e l l a t e C e

n t e r , L L C| w w w . i r

a c . n e t


8/24

lan to apal t co's finding on te aggavatd lony. he co hby ordrs th

spondnt movd fom t Unitd Stats to Zamia. Tis s th nd o t cos

oal dcision

signature

A076-581488

Please see the next page for electronic

ELZABETH A KESSLERImmigation Judge

2 January 28, 215


9/24

/Isl

Imigration Judge ELZABTH A. KSLR

kesslere on March 16, 2015 a 11:35 M GMT

A7-81488 3 anuary 28 21

p p

,


10/24

4:

� · (·,{ "1./' ' \

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEEXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR MIGRAION REIEW

IMIGTION COURT31 HOPK.INS PLAZA ROOM 4 0

BATIMORE D 21201

Law Offices of Alan ParraParra, Alan M1100 Wayne AveueSite 0Siver Spring MD 20910

IN TE MATTER OFSAMA, VE

FIE A 076-581-488

UNABLE O FORRD NO ADDRESS PROVIDED

DATE: Ja 16 2015

ATTACHED IS A COPY OF E DECISION OF TE IIGTION JUDGE TIS DECISIONIS FINAL UNESS AN APPEA IS FIED WITH TE BOARD OF IMMIGION APPEALWITHIN 30 CALENDA DAY OF THE DAE OF THE AILNG OF TIS WRITEN DECISIONSEE THE ENCLOSED FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR POPERLY PREPARING YOUR APPEALYOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL ATTACED DOCUMENTS AND FEE OR FEE WAIVER REQUESTMUST BE AIED TO OARD OF IMMIGTION APPEALS

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

; �.510 eesbr ike, Sie 2000

'. T�:ED IS A COPY OF L

E· oAH0

IGON JUDGE AS HE RESUL ; F YOUR FAILUE TO APPEAR AT YOUR SCHEDUED DEPORTAION OR REOVAL EARING\

TIS DECISION IS FINA UNESS A OTION TO REOPEN IS FILED IN ACCORDANCE -·,.

WIT SECTION 24

2 (c) (3)

OF TE IMMIGRATION AND NAIONAITY ACT8

USC ·SECTION 1252 (c (3) IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS OR SECTION 240 (c) {6, . /�8 USC ECION 1229a(c) () IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS F YOU FILE A MOTIONTO REOPEN, YOUR MOION MS BE FILED WITH THIS COUR:

IMIGRATION COURT31 HOPKINS PLAA ROOM 440BALTIMORE D 21201

OTHER:

COURT CERK

IMIGTION COURTCC HS ICE, OFFICE OF THE CIEF COUNSEL31 HOPKIN PAA 16T FOORAORE, MD 22010000

FF

p p

,


11/24

In he Mtter of

Ver SAMA

espondent

Chrge:

Isss:

Appearances:

(

United States Deprtment of JuiceExecuive Oc r Immigration Review

Immigrion CourBltimore, Mland

In Removal Procedings

Case # 076-581-488

Immirao ad Naoaty Ac (INA") § 23(a)(2)(A)(iii)

Rmovabily ad Rspond's Moion o Teia

Ala M Parra, on bhaf of h Rspod;Ci E Joson d Jir Piaski on bhf of h Dparmn ofHomland Sciy

Decisio d Order of he Immiraion Jude on Reovabili

Th Rspodn is a aiv ad ciiz of Zba ad a lawl pann rsid of tnid Sas O Ocobr 1, 2014, Dparm of Homlnd Scury (DHS) ssud hespondn a Noic o Appar (NA), which alls tha ( 1) Respodn s no a ciiznor naiona of Uid Sas (2) h esponde is a naiv nd ciize of amba () hResondn was admitd o th Unid Sas a Nw York, NY, o or abou Decmbr 19,1989, a Visior; (4) th Rspodn's satus was adjusd o ha of a law permanrsidn on Apil 0, 2002; (5) Respoden was convicd on Auus 18, 2006 of h $500 plus valu, i violaio of CR 7 .104 of he Aoad Cod of Myland, h Circui Cour ofMarylad r Balimor Coun, MD; and (6) he Respod wa sced o a of hreyars i jal Th NA chard he Rspond wth movabily prsu o INA §27(a)(2)(A)(i) as convicd of an aravad lony as dned a NA § 101(a0943)(G), a lawrlain o Th: 500 pus valu Exh 1

A a masr calndar har on Novmbr 10, 2014, h Rspod admitd cuaallaions houh 4, and died allgaions 5 and 6 Co te sceduld n individualhari on rmovabiliy o Dcmbr 11, 2014 A indvda hearn, th HS objecd o th admisso o he rcord of Exhibi , ab h Cou noed he DHS' s obecion, buadmed th vidnc, subc o evauaion of is appropria w ad lvc by h CouTh pais did no o y hr arms, objcions, or wnss simony a he idivdualharin Th Cour hrupon rservd dcisio on h ssu of rmovabilit

1

g g p p

,


12/24

(

At isse bere te Co is weer e DH as e its rden to esabis by ce dconincng evidence ta e Respondens te conicion under d Code Ann, Cri Law §71 04 constittes aggaaed ony f so, te coniction woud ender te Respondenteoabe ps o IN § 237(a)(2)()(iii)

Statement of the Case

Te lowing eidence been adied into e recod and considered by e Cor:xibi 1 , te Notice to Appear; xibit 2, te DHS's Bief in uppo of Reoabiiy; Gropxii 3, e DHSs Sbission of igaion and Ciina Recods Peaing o eespondent; d Grop Exit 4, te Responden's Reply Brief in uppor of eination ofeoa Proceedings, Taed B

e DH gues at te espondent's te coniction constites an agaated onynder te odied categorica approac endeing er eoabe psa to INA §37(a)(2)(A)(iii) e DHS acowedges a e U upee Cor in Descamps v. United

States, 1 33 S Ct 76 (201 3), ed at te caegoica approac sod be appied wen tecrie in qesion as a singe set of indiisibe eleents Te DH aso notes tat e Boad ofmigaion Appeas (BIA") acnoweded tis approac exends o te iiraion contexSee Matter of Chairez-Casejon, 26 &N Dec 349 (BA 2014) Howee, te DHS asses tat te espondens conicion nder § 7-1 04 sod be anayzed uiizing e odied categoricaappoac e DH contends at e Co sod appy e diisiiity aysis se r by eBA in Mater ofSweetser, 22 &N Dec 709, 71 5 (BA 1999), because of te bread of esate of conicion d its coerage of a range of disinct ateatie oenses, wic wod

pei te Co o appy e odied categorica appac x a 3 Te DH posits tat §71 04 contains sepate and discrete a teatie iations of te oenses Accodingy, teDH asses at a odied caegorica approac sod be appied o deteine wete te

espondens conicion s nder eier § 71 04(a) or (b), wic te DHS es wold eanit qaies as an agaated ony based on a caied atc beween tese two subsections of he sae d te generic denition of te Ex 2 at 7 Fe, e DH asses tat teMayand ste does eqire, as eeent nder sbsections (a) and (b), tat e naorizedcono oer propery be wo te owners consent Te DH aintains tis distingisessbsections (a) d (b) of te Mayld te sate o te Virginia credi cd ad stteanayzed in Soliman v Gonzales, 41 9 F3d 276, 285 (4t Cir 2005), wic did not reqire tat e taking be wio consen, and wic e o Circi accodingy eld did not quai s aggaated ony 1 Ex 2 a 8.

Te esponden ges a er e conicion caegoricay does not consti an

aggraated lony irst, e Responden asses tat e e oense is not an aggaated onybecase e statte of coniction is indiisible and incldes conduct tat is no penaized nde

1 Aer the conclusion of the individual earng and submission o evidence, te Fourth Cicuit issued a decsion nOmargharib v. Holder, holdng tt the Virgini cime of larceny s ndisble between te and ud oensesand eee does not consttute aggraated felony the purposes of A § 10 I (a)(43(G. The ouh Circuit' saalysis in Omargharib will b e discussed infa

2

g g p p


13/24

e generc derl enon of the Ex. 4, Resp s Br. 3 he Responden sses hegenerc derl denon of he requres e elemen of nonconsensul kng and does nonclude the of servces d. 78 By cons, he Maryl nd sue ncludes he by deceponn susecon (b, whch e Responen rues does no requre l ck of consen, d lsoncludes he of serces n susecon e I 131 4. Accordng o e Responde, heMryland saue s nsble uner Descamps becuse conans wh e Responden ews s lee means of commtn e, s opposed o lee elemens. Te Resondences he nereon of he Mryland Cour of Appels n Rce v. tate o rgue th teMryland e stue s consolded, nsble su o ch ony c egorical anlyss my be ppled. In h cse, he Mrylnd Cou of Appels und th j does no hve o unnmousy gree on whch of § 7- 04' s elemens hs een proen, so long s he jury grees h e oerll oense of e ws commed Rice v. tate, 532 A.2d 1357, 13862 (Md.1 987. For hese reasons, he Responen conends, e saue of concon encompssesconuc h my or my no consue ggrved felony, d herere er concon doesno cegorclly consue remole oense prsu o A § 2372(A( Ex. 4,Res'' s Br 1516.

Applicable Law

Removab Pursuant to ! 23 7(a)(2)(A) NA § 237(2A prodes r he remoly of an len who s convced of gred felony any me er dmsson. Te erm "gr ed lony s dened n IA § 1 0((43 nclues, mongoher crmes, e. See IA § 10 43G. e denon of ggr ed felony ncludes consprcy or emp o comm y crme descrbe h secon. A § 101 (43(U); 8CF.R. 1001 . Seco 1 01 (43G of e Ac ncludes n he denton of ggrvedfelony e oense ncludng recep of solen propery or burglary oense r whch e erm of mprsonmen [s] les one year To deene weher e erm of mprsonmen s les one year, e perod of connemen ordered y e crmnal cour s sposve,reardless of any suspenson of h senence n whole or n p A § 1 0 1 (48(B

To deermne weer an len's convcon conses n ggrv ed lony, cousgenerlly pply he "cegorcl pproch o nlyze responden' s pror concon. eeDescamps, 133 S. C 2281 nder the cegorca pproc, he cour looks "oy o hesuory denon of he se crme nd he c of conco o deene whether e conduccrmnalze y he sue quales s removble oense. Unted tates v Royal, 731 3d333, 34142 (4h Cr. 2013; see aso Descamps, 133 S. C 2283. Howeer, even were se sue clly coers conduc no encompssed by remole oense, he c eorcl pproch "requres cus on he mnmum conduc h s relsc proly of en prosecued under he sue of concon. Maer of Chairez-Castrejon, 26 & Dec. 349see also Mater of Ferrera, 26 &N ec 41 , 420-21 (BIA 2014

Only where sue s "dvse my cou ulze moded ceorcl pproch. nsuch crcumsances, he cour my look o he record of concon, ncludn he ch rnocumen, he ple greemen, he ple colloquy, d y explc nns of c me y he rl juge Prudencio v Holder, 669 F3d 472, 48 4 Cr 2012 see aso hepard v. United

3

g g p p


14/24

·Saes, 544 US 1 3, 5 (2005). A ivisible se s one ses ou one or more elemens ofhe oense in he leiver example, saing h brgly nvolves eny ino biling o omobile" Descamps, 1 33 S C. 2281 If one aleive mches n elemen n egener oense of he rime, b he oher oes no, e our my pply he modie cegorial ppro o onsl limie lss of omens, s as inicmens an ry insrons, oeermine whih leve e he bsis of he Responen's prior onvon I.

In ae of ChaiezCasrejon, he BIA expressly ope he Supreme Cors ecisonn Descamps ater o CharezCaseon, 26 &N Dec 354 e BIA rher hel h r se o be visible ms inle leve elemens of e oense d ce Descamps rhe proposion an oense's elemens are he s o crme h ill nnanimously an beyon reson ble dob. See i 353355 In Omarghai v Holde, heForh Circ consiere he ivsiblity of he crme of lareny nder Vrgini l , heelemens of wich e dene by omon lw -- F3 ---, 2014 WL 7272786, * 1 1 7 (4hCr. De 23, 204) The Foh Circi hel h he se of he isjuncive in he eniion of rme oes no omicly rener he rme vsible; rer, i s he e of mliple leive elemens h es blises he vsibli of rime o isngush leveelemens of crime om leive means of ommiing e se crime, he Forh Crise h elemens" e cl circmsances of he oense he ry ms nd nanimosly beyond resonble ob Omarghai, 2014 WL 7272786, * 4

Relev o is mer, e Supreme Cor, cng e BIA nd severl Ciri os, hs ccepe s generc enion of e e aking of propery or n exercise of conol overropery ihou consen w e rmnl ien o eprve he owner of rigs benes ofownership, even if sch epvon is less hn oal or permen Gonzales v Duenas-Alvaez, 549 U.S 183, 189 (2007) (qoing Penu/ia v oales, 435 F3d 961 , 969 (2006)); seealso ate of aciaMaduga, 24 I&N Dec 436, 44041 (BIA 2008).

ayland Geneal The Poisons The ryln onsol e e sae ombnes were seven sepe leny oenses one ime refee o s l reny, larceny by ick,leny er rs, embezzlemen, lse preenses, shoplig, n receiving solen properno e rime of e Hob v. ae, 83 A3 794, 804 n3 (M 2014) Secion 7104 (enileGenerl e provsions") provies, in �ernen pr, several leve ses of elemens homprise isin ypes of he oenses:

Unuhorze onrol over propey() A person my no lllly or owingly obn or exer n horize conolover proper, if e person:

( 1 ) inends o eprive he owner of he propery;(2) illlly or knowngly ses, onels, or banons e propery n mner h eprives he owner of he popery; or(3) es, conels, or bndons e propery knowng he se,concealmen, or banonmen probly wll deprive e owner of he

2 N.B In 00, the Maryand Geneal Assemby reoganzed the Maryld criminl code Te, and in pariculMd Code Ann, Crim Lw § 7- 1 0, erly ws codfed under Md An Code art 7, § § 34034

4

p p

,


15/24

pop

Unautozd onol ov pop--B dption(b) A pson a no obn onol ov pop b willll o knowigl using dption, if t pson:

( ) intnds to dpiv own of pop;(2) llll o knowingl uss, oncls, o abndons popt in a

at dpvs t on of th pop; o(3) uss, onals, o abandons op knowng us,conalnt, o abandonmn pobabl will dpiv t own of t

pop

Possssing stoln psonal pop()(1 ) A pson a not possss stoln psonal pop knowing ta it as bnstoln, o living tat it pobabl s n soln, if t psn

(i) innds to dpv t own of pop;(ii) wlll o knowngl uss, oncals, o abdons h popr in a n at dpvs t own of h pop; o(iii) ss, on ls, o abandons t pop knowng that t us,onalnt o abandonmnt pobabl will dpiv own of t

popy(2) In t a of a pson in t businss of buing o slling gods, kwldg qid nd ths subsction a b nd i:

(i) t pson posssss o xs onol ov popr stoln o o tan on pson on spaa oasions;(ii) dug t a pcding t iinal possssion gd, h

pson as aid stoln pop in a spaa ansation; o(iii) ing in h businss of buing o slling popr of so possssd, t pson auid i a onsidation a psonknw ws a blow a asonabl valu

(3) In a posution b possssion of stoln pop und thssstion, it is not a dfns at:

(i) t pson o stol t pop as not bn convitd,appndd o idntid;(ii) th dfnda stol o piipad in t staling of t popt;(iii) t popy as povidd b law nnt as pt of ninvstigation if t pop was dsibd to th dndant asbing obtnd toug t oission f t; o(iv) t staling of t pop did not ocu in t Sat

(4) nlss th pson wo iinall posssss stoln pop piipad in t staling t pson wo nall posssss stoln pop and a son wo s stoln pop a not aoplis t ppos of an l of evidn uiing oooaion of tstion of n accoplic.

5

g g p p


16/24

Conro over prope los, msad, or delvered b msake(d A person may no oban conol over proer kong ha he roper asos, misaid, or as delvered nder a msake as o he ideni of e recipen ornatre or on of he ropery, i e person:

( ) knos or es he den of he oner or nos s ae o orles of a reasonable meod of idenig e oner;(2 ls o ake reasonable meases o resore he proper o he oner;d(3) inends o deprive he owner permanen of he se or bene of the proper hen he person oban e proper or a a laer me.

Servces avalabe onl r compensaon(e A erson ma no oban he services of anoher tha are avlable onl rcompensaio

( 1 b decepon; or(2 th knoedge ha he servces are provded tho the consen of

he person provdng hem

Analysis and Fidings

Removabil Pursuant to !NA § 237(a))(A).

A. Agavate Felony The Ofnse In s case, te Responden ha been convced of te nder Md Code n., Crm La § 7- 1 04. he rs issue o address s heher theRespondens he oense conses an agavaed lon. The DHS assers ha the Marlandsae is dvisible because of the breadh of e sae of convicion and is coverage of a rangeof aleave oenses B appng he modied caegorcal approach, he DHS assers a he

Responden ma be nd o have commed a he oense nder § 7- 104(a), ch he DHSargues s hin the generc deral denion of the Exh. 2 a 1 1 . The Responden ser, bconra tha he sae is ndivisibe he Respoden posis tha the Mland se isoverbroad and caegorical is no a mach o the generic deral denon of he because theMarland sae incldes ha he Responden describes as aleave means of commnghenclding the b decepon and the o servcesich are no inclded in egeneric edera deniion Te Resoden arges ha the generic deral denion requires hehe o occr ihou he owner's consen and ta the he ms be of roper, no o servces,and ha r this reon he Marand he saue is overbroad. Exh. 4, Res s Br 1 314 eResponden arges tha becase Mand cors inerpre § 7-1 04 o no reqre jr nanmta o hch sbsecion or sbsecions of § 7 104 migh have been volaed n a parclar case he

enire sae is indvisible, and erere does no caegorical cone a aggravaed lony the oense nder A § 1 01 (a(43(G) Id a 101 1 .

1 I § 7-104 ivisible at al?

The Responden assers ha § 7- 1 04 is indivisble becase a convcion under § 7-104

6

p p

,


17/24

(

dos not t th quien of juy uniity undr r rading of Maer f Chaez-Casejon Te Respondn cis to Rce v. ae o sow at Mayand Co of Appes asinreed § 7-1 04 to not equire jy niiy wit spc o e spcic susecon of ons coitd Rice v. ae 1 1 Md. at 1 61 ruin at caus Mayand dos not

quir jry unaniity as to wic of § 7- 104's susctions av n povn, so on as ac juor as a at las on of§ 7- 104s susections was violatd, t Rspondn clais at sut is indivisi wn teative sts of ments, bu raer is dividd io altativ ans of coitting t ons of te Tr, e Rspondnt connds ta i cnot e provn und a caegorica anaysis wete o not t Respondnt was convicd of anagravatd lony Ex 4, Rsp s B 1 1 In conast, DHS gues tat e saut containsspa and disinc aleativ ypes of e, ac of wic conns is ow st of ents,and at r at ason su s divisile

Th ost siple and natual radin of e txt of § 7 1 04 supports th conclusion at stau is divisil into ve altaiv sts of ents Sction 7 1 04 is ntitd Gena h provisions," d it ists v vraly d nalyically spae d indpndntly laldsusctions (a)() Th only natua radin of § 7 104 is at i is a divisil state d at i

is divisi ino ve aleativ onss, ac of wic prsns on of e Gnra h povisions" I is, in c, d to conceiv of a statu dividd o clly into alate sts ofeleents an § 7 04 t its cly delinead nd spaaey sutiled susctions (a)()

T Rspondnt as uc of t ct a te Mayland Co of Appals asdrined ta jury uiity is not rquid s to wic paticu susecion of § 7- 104 wasviolated in ord r a dndant to convicd und § 7 104 I dos appa o ydcase law at Myland cous av concluded tat, in od to suppor a convicion unde § 71 04, jury unaniiy is no rqued as to wic of vry distinct susections ay av nvioatd Re v Sate, 52 2d at 1 361 Givn a subscions a() so distinc andvaid (including, xapl, t of svics ad cipt of solen ppty), i stands o

ason ta a jury would stil av to ak a nding ta coud suppod y picuvidnc prsnted in a cas and hat acua juy inscions in a case would car to a jurywhic susction or susctions wr vial in a particul cas3 In a given cas, it ay e hat a jry would insuctd at i convict undr a tory, say, of eihe h of propy or ofsvics In suc a cas, it may vey wll ipossil to tll wic toy, if ay, prevaild,ad t rcord of convicion i inconcusiv i spc o wic of Gnral e

povisions" was violatd a dos no an, owv, at t staue itslf is not divisi

3 The Maryland Ste Bar Sandng Commiee on Pae J Inscions, composed of Maland judes ayers,and aw professors has copiled model crmna ury nscons, whch se rh separae ses of eleens rsubsecons (a) hrouh (e. See .g., I-CR 4:2 § 7- 1 04(a) he Unauhorized Cono; MP-C 1 § 7-1 0(b The Obain Conol by Decepon; P -CR 42 .2 § 7- 1 04(c) he Possession of Solen Proper;see also David E Aaronson, Maland Criminal Junsuctions and Commnta § 670- (d ed. 20cumulae suppleen) oreover, he nscons r each subsecon conain he log phre f youconcude beyond a reasonable doub ha he Sae has proved each of he eemens of he oense," ereby mplyingha each subsecon conans s on separae se of eleens Maland Cimina u Itrutions andCommenta § 670- Accordingy, i does no appear ha a ry could conc a defendan of a violaon of heGeneral he prosons under § 704 wihou consdering any one of hese ses of scons peinen o especc susecon(s presened as a basis r a voaon

7

g g p p

,


18/24

Secion 7-1 04 is a cassi divisibe saue, noihsanding ha i ay no b cea in a paicua case unde hch secion a juy conviced a paicur individua and nowithsanding ta a ju in Mayand need no e a unanimous vedic with espec o on of e vesubsecions of he Geneal he povisions" A ae exaiaion of peden conceig eappiaion of te caegoic ad odied caegoica appoahes eveas a jury unanmiyhas nve been adoped as he dening es whehe a se is divisibe ino aeaoenses A ose exainaion of lor v United tates, 495 S 575 ( 1 990), Shepard, andDesmps evas ha he Supee Cou has used no on juy unaniiy, hih eceivesscan enion in he Supee Cour jurisprudence on he aegoria d odied caegoriaappoahes, bu he on whethe a satue onains aeae eens Neie Taylor noShepard ases the issue of juy uaniiy o suggess ha jury unanimiy oud he deeinewhethe a paricu stauory oense was boade han he genei equivaen. Desmps'phasis oughou is on e eens of an onse and, in paiua, on divisibe sues,which ae dened as hose wh eaive eeens ee Desamps, 1 33 S C a 2284 ([InTayor,] we hypohszed a saue wih aeaive eeensmoe picuay, a burgarysatue ( ohewise conring o he geneic cme) ha pohibis eny of an auoobie as we

as a buiding '"); a 228 (Tha is h job, as we have aays undesood i, of he odiedappoach: o ideni, o ong seva ataivs, he ce of conviion so a h coucan opae i o he generi oense"); Id a 2286 (Ou decisions authoize eview of he peacooquy o ohe appoved exasauory docuens ony when a sae denes bgar no(as hee) oveboady, but insead aeaivey, wi on sauoy phrase osponding o hegeneic ie and anothe o"); . a 2293 (Because genei unaw ey is no eeen,o n aeaiv en , a onvicion ude ha satut is nve genei bugary"); (A cou ay use the odied appoach ony o deerie hih aeaive eeen in adivisibe saue md he basis of e defnda s conviion").

The brief eence o jury unaniiy in Desamps, in conas, is ade in dicta in

pssng o phasize ha the inth Ciui in ta cse had auhoized] he co ot todisce wha a ta showed, o a pea poceeding eveaed, abou he dnd's undeyngconduc The Sixh Aenden cee a a juyno a senencing courwi ndsuch s, unaiousy d beyond a easonabe doub And the oy cs h our ca b sure

e juy so und are hose consituing eeens of the oenseas disin o piing buegay exaneous icusances" I a 2288 (phasis added) The o ipora par of e

passage is eence o wha we can be sue the jur und, hih ephasizes he wokng of he caegorica d odied categoica appoahes . As noed, n soe insances of vioaions of§ 7 1 04, depending on ha insions a juy was given i may be ipossibe o deerineunde hich subsecion a defendan was onvicd in a given cas Tha woud ende he ecodofcovicion incusiv, bu woud no ende e oense o be itou eeens Noaby, te

Supee Cou chose cary he wod conepaes" in is bief passage nd does nosugges tha the Sixth Aeden aays equies juy unaniity o a is oes in issho passage wee its ditiv views on y uniiy in tis conex

Signcy, non-uious y vedics ae consituionay perissibe in sae oiina ias See Johnson v Louisiana, 406 S 36 (1 972); Apodaa v Oregon, 406 US

8

p p

,


19/24

404 ( 972) As stt ry may pssibly oit wiot niity, amty simplnot b what denes elemts of an os J nanmity cnot ser dlmigctor in whhr somig is or is ot a lmnt of a state rm becase j nanimity, whlow ypiall proidd r b most stts i rimial css, is ot onsitionall reqird sttriminal oictions will pass Sixh Amdmnt scriny if lss tha j animit isreqird to coni In tos es, th lak of j nity old ot rdr r wiotelemns

To b sr, h BIA mphasizd ry animity in Mater o Chairez bt what may haemade sns to disss in ontxt of th Utah sat at iss in that ase (wh h BAoldd as diisibl b sbstions (a), (b), d (), bt not diisibl witn (a) intoonses arrying dirnt lls of mns ra) does not make sns i th ontx of hMld h stat Mater oChairez's mor lgthy discussio of jry imit is notnssry to its holding ad extds mor broadly hn Sprm Cor's rspdn on htgorcal approah

Th Utah stt in Mater o Chairez was d diisibl ito sbstios (a), (b), d

(), bt not divisible withi () bsd on oiabl ioltions of (a) iolig diring llsof ms rea. Th U statte proidd i ky par as llos

( 1 ) Expt s [othrwis] providd . , a prson ho dishargs a rearm is gilty of third dgre lony punshable b imprisonmt r a t of ot lss h e ysor mor e yars i:

() te tor dschargs a rrm i dirton of ay prson or prsons,owig or hving raso to beli at y perso my b dagredby th disharg of th rrm;

(b) h actor, with itet to intimidat or hass othr or wi itnt todamag a habitabl srtr . . , dishargs a rm i dirtion of

ny prson or habibl srtr; or() te ator, with itn to intimidat or harass ohr, dishrgs a r

in t direction of y ehil.

Maer of Chairez, 26 &N De at 35 .

Th BIA conldd basd o the txt hat Uth st was divisibl btwn (a), (b),d (), d tha (b) d (c) wr ah atgorially rims of violn. Id To h xtnt Uh stut is diisible into spratl dlintd sbstions, it rainly rsmbls Marlnd stat in is onstion. In ayzig th Uah statt, th BA oldd tatsbsctio (a) ws ot hr diisibl into dirnt lmts basd on s r rqirmnts,

i p base jry nnimity was ot rquird as to whih pil s r was inold ina iolatio of sbstio (), whih old b pron by reklss ondt as well moreitoal stds. h BA ould ha rahd th sme conclsio b xamiing simply thstor txt and oncldig at a iolaion of sbsetion (a) old b broadr a rim ofiolene

9

p p

,


20/24

Moreove, te elements of te Ut subsections can be easily identied under te BIA'sanysis but te elements of a te violation in Mayld ae mossible to identi nder teResondent's interetation of § 71 04, wic would render it a cme witout elements. Wirespect to e Uta statute, it is quite simle to state e elements of a violation of subsection a),r exple, by stating tat a person ust (i) discarge a re, (ii) in e direction of y

eson or esons, d (i) owing o aving reason to believe tat y eson may beendangered by e discge. Tat iii) may include recklessness is wat mes subsection a)ovebroad, ad te oper reading of e statute is not tat eckessness is an alteate elementbut tat te mens rea element is broad.

n contrast, § 71 04 General te rovisions") does not lend itself to being read as oneindivisible but broad oense in te same way tat subsecion a) of e Uta stute could beread as one oense wic is too broad to be an agavated lony Nowee in te Resondent'sbrief or gent does te Respondent state, weter succincly o oewise, wat te elementsare of te Generalized te provision in Mayland. Te Resondent res eeatedly to § 7-1 04 as a consolidated" te ste, but that only obscates te issue. It cey could be tat

te Geneal te povisions" consolidate ve distinct e oenses in a diisible manner:

Unautorized conol over opery; Unautoized conol over roey by decetion;Possessing stolen personal opery Control over ropey lost, misld, or deliveed by iste Services avlable only r compensation" Calling te statute a consolidatedstute does not swer te question as to wee o not it is divisible, and muc less along watlines it migt be divisible.4

Te ndamental problem wih te Respondent's reading of § 71 04 is tat it renders estatute wiout any elements watsoever. If, as te Resondent claims, only paricul items atmust be und y a jury uaimoly to convict under § 7-104 der any cicustances cout aselements" of a te oense in Maryland, ten § 7-1 04 in ct a no elements watsoever Insraining to view e satute in he Resondent's optic as a uied, sngle e oense, e Co

is unable to identi wat te element of te migt possibly be wiout esoring to a list ofwolly searate alteative elements a), b), c), d), or e) Siictly, te vaious General

te ovisions" contain no single common element among subsection a)e): some involve ropey, one involves sevices, some require a ac of consent, and some may be commied troug decetion It is simly impossible to rovide te elements of a volation of § 71 04 inMland wiout resoing to some iteration of it is eiter a) or b) or c) or d) or e). Tat iswat mes te statute divisible into teative eeents

4 Notably, the majoity of ates have enacted oe ofconolidated" the taute in a e to avoid heoblesome cenaio in which a defendant, convicted of one type of the cme, on appea claims that hs crme wasone of the othe es of the cimes, and ubseqenty he defenant' s conviction is evesed See 3 Wayne RLaave, Substante Criminal L § 1 9 8 (2d ed. 20 14) Conolidated e stattes allow a poecuto to lodge onepe of the chage the inrmation o idictet and late upon discovey and ubmiion of all evience, poveha ohe type of e cme wa actuay commied sti obtai a conviction See, e.g, Md Code A,Cim aw § 7 0 (a chage of the ay be pove by evidence at the e was commie i a mane that ihe unde thi pa, even f a dieent mne i pecied n the inmation indicent aant, o othe chgigdocument) Notithstanding such conoldaton poecution prpoe, a conoidated" e state, such as §7-104 ll encompaes seveal alteative type of the cie with entiely distinct and sepaate alteative et ofelement See Section 7 104(a(e)

10

p p

,


21/24

Fnaly, t must be note hat the Fouh Crcut' s ecison n Omargharib oes notsgnicy impact ts case because the cme o laceny n Virga s ene erently than

he crme o the in Malan er § 71 04. In Omargarib, e Fou Circuit hel at eresponen's Vrgina laceny convicion i not conste aggravae lony the oenseuner IA § O (a)(43)(G) becase Virgina la eats au an e as he same r ceny

puoses, but e A eats tem erently" 2014 L 7272786, at * 1 . Te Fou Circutun tat lceny in Vrgna not contain vsible sets of alteative elements thatarceny in Vrgina sweeps more roay' an te INAs e oense." I (citing Descamps133 . C. at 2283

n Virginia arceny is punse by sae, but ts eeents e ene by common laLarceny is ene in Virginia as te ong or alent taking of oter's propeythout hs pession h the nent to peanently eve the oner of a propey."Bri v. Commonwealth, 67 E.2 763, 75 (Va. 2008); Omargharib, 2014 W 7272786, at 10 (quoing Brit) Ths, the elemens o lrceny in Virgia may be broken on as llos: 1 )

the rongl or auulent akng; 2) of anoer s propey; 3) ithout peisson; an 4) t

the nten to pemanenty eprve te oner o at propey.

In its alyss of eer larceny n Virgna is ivsible between rongl anauulent takngs, therere beeen takngs at are wit or ihout consent, the FourhCrcut note that e]lements, as stngishe om means, are ctual circumstaces o theoense he jury must n unanmously an beyon a reasonable obt. Omargharib, 2014W 727278, at * 14 (quoting United States v. Royal, 731 .3 333, 341 (4th Cr 20 3) anDescamps, 33 S. t. at 2288). Finng hat Vrginia la as use both rongl an auulentings as to erent means of satisyng e ou consent" element, the Fo Circutconcle tat rong or audulent kings are alteaive meas of commng lceny, notalteaive elemens" Id at 1 5-1 . ing Vrginia moel ury nstrucions, e Fou irct

also un tat urors in Virginia are not reqire to agree unanmously on eer a taking asongl or auulent I. a 1 5.

The ivisibiliy analysis t respect o he Marylan cie of te soul not begovee by e aalysis of the Vrgna rime of lceny because Maryan as ene e bystatute has set rh very elbertely a snc se o entrely alteaive elements rierent ypes o te oenses5 Moreover, as th te aalysis of te Uta statute consiereabove, even conserig reqrements conceng jury unanimity, te Virgina statute stl

5Of note Black's L Dictionar 520 (6th ed 1 990) dene "element of crme a "[t]hoe conttuent pa ofa

crime whch mut be proved y the proecution to utain a conviction A term sed y the common law to refer to

each component of the actu reu cauaton, and the men rea that mut be proved n order to etalh that a gvenoene ha occed (iteal ctaton omed) It may ply be that element of a cre e what a leglarehas dened them a Where there ncertainy n a atuto text a to what the element are or how broadly anelement or element hold e evaluated looking at jury unanimity requirement may help clar how roadly ornaowly an element or element houl be ndertood. In th cae an naly of the tattory language of § 7- 1 04,whch et rh the conttuent pa of everal pe of e crme reveal that the tatute contan eparate andditinct alteate element n t uction

1 1

g g p p

,


22/24

conns elements, of hch s vead he ste to categocaly a the ense Incontast, f juy unanm ee the sle tuchstne of hee someng n a staute s elemen, then § 7- 1 04 ould have n elemens at all hee smply cot e a cme utelements. Rae, § 7- 104 s est undestood as contnng alteate sets of elemens, on ch ay need nt aee unmously The lack of unmty may mean that n a pcul case theecd of convcton ll be nconclusve, u t does not mean that § 7- 04 s not dvsle

Based on the ave, he Cou concdes that § 7- 04 s dvsle no alteate sets ofelements as dened b the legslatue.

2 Into what altentive elements is € 7-104 divisible ae any othse navated flon the onse and has the Resondet been convicted o angavated flon in this articulr case?

s § 7- 04 s dvsle, e stute of cnvcton must be anlyed nde the modedcategocal appoach hs entals a cmpasn f e elements f te cme of convcton t

he elements f the genec cme Descamps, 3 S t at 228 As sated pevosly, Gonzes

v Duenas-Alvarez set he genec dea den of the" as a takng of popey an execse f conl ove pope thout consen th the cmnal ntent t depve teone of ghts and enets of oneshp, even f such depvatn s less t total o

pemanent." 549 US at 1 89 Examnng he saghtad text of e sttute evels at t sdvsle nto susectons (a), (), (c), (d), nd (e)some f hch match the genec dentnof the and sme of hch do not

nayng § 7-1 04 n lght f te elements of he genec oense, the Cou nds tat § 7-104( a), (c), d (d) l th the scope of genec he, heeas § 7- 04() and (e) do not Eachof § 7- 04(a), (c), and (d) nvolves the tang o execse of cnol ve the pope of anothetht consent d t te nten to depive e owne of te ghts d enets of ownesp.

Fst, all ee susectons eque e dendant o tan o execse conl ove the popey ofohe Addtonally, te defendat mus execse conol tho e ne' s cnsent hs s the case unde § 7- 04(a) ecause e dendan' s conol of the popery s unied, unde 7-1 04(c) ecause the possesson s f pope the dendant knos o eleves to be stolen,and unde § 7- 04(d) ecase he dendant must no the owne lost, mslad, o delveed te

popey y mse Fuheoe, such execse of contol nvolves cinl ntent ecause eachsusecton eques ntentnal o nong depvaton of e ne of e popey Fnaly, ll

thee subsectns nvolve depvng he oe of the ppey, o of at least some of e ghtsd enets of oneshp, to a deee hat s pemanent clse eadng f e povsns of §7- 104 d ts denns, paculay the dentn of depve" a § 7- O (c), indcates thatdepve" unde he Mland geneal he povsons eques an ntent ha at least soe f the

ights d enets of oneshp are lkely to e hheld om the vctm n a peanent assFo the aove easons, § 7- 04(a), (c), and (d) ithin e genec deal dentn of the

By cntas, 7- 04() des not qal unde the genec denton of e because tdoes not eqe a ack of consen Whle 7- 04() does nvlve e execse f unahoizedcontol ove popey, such con mst e otaned y decepton In Soiman v. Gozaes, the

1 2

p p

,


23/24

ourh Crcu held hat a he oense whch does no nvolve the lack of consent does noqual as a he oense" under he generc federal deion, ecause t s ore akn o aud

han he Soliman, 41 9 3d a 283 n hat decson, the Cou concluded ha oense hanvolves aud or decet" lls ore arorately win te deno of aud a A §10 (a)(43)(M) than does uder he e provson a N § 1 0 (a)(43)(G) e Cour noed

ha he cre of aud ivolves a se represenaon of a aeral ct hch deceves ands ntended o deceve anoter so ha he shall ac uon t to hs nury" I a 282 Moreover, nOmargharib, he Fourh Crcu held ha lceny n Vrga, hch cludes oh audulent androngl aings, does no consue a generc e oense r uoses of IA §10(a)(43)(G) See 201 4 W 7272786, at * 1 1 . ccordngly, § 7- 104(), hich depends upon heeleen of deceton or decevng o oain unauhorized cono, does not ll whn he genercderal denion of the. Slly, § 7 1 04(e) also does not ll i he generic federaldeon of he ecause § 7- 1 4(e) nvolves obanng e servces of another eher bydecepon or wtout consen Gven a he generic deral deiton of e nvolves only heang or exercse of conol overproper, no servces, § 7-104(e) s ousde the scope of agenec te oense ee aso Huerta-Gueara . Ashcrof 321 F3d 883, 887 (9th Cr 203)(ndng hat he of servces s no a generc the oense)

Havng deened hat only § 7- 104(a), (c), nd (d) qual under the generc deraldenon of he, te Cour us consder wheer he Responden wa convced under one ofhese subsecons y alyzng he lted cass of doces eted under Shepard v Uniedates, 544 U.S 1 3 (2005) ese docuens generaly nclude e satuory deto of heoense, chargng docuent, wrten plea agreeent, rscr of lea colloquy, and ny explccual ndng y he al judge o whch the defendan assened I at 6. n s cae, hesteent of charges o he Dsrc Cour of Mryland r Balore County provdes ha theResponden as charged h seal[ig] groceries of Royal ar Sore havng a value of$500.00 or greaer n he volaton of CR 7- 104 of e Anoaed Code of Maryland" Ex 3,Tab B a 26

Gven ha he seen of charges speces ha he Respondent was convced ofsealng oceres elongng o Royal F Sore, he Respondent was ot convcted under § 71 04( c ), d), or e ), whch nvolve possesson of stolen proerty, conol over lost or slaidroery, and he of servces, respecvely e only reanng rvsons to govern econvcton re § 7- 1 04(a), whch ques generc the, and § 7- 1 04b), wch does no due ohe absence of ny requreent of lack of consent Exaing he saemen of chges, ere snoing o ndcae tha he Respondent's takg of groceres nvolved he use of decepon, aswould e required under § 7- 104(b). By cont, he Resonden's charge r sealng groceresls squely wh § 7 04(a) The Resondent as convced of a consracy o ake he

proery of other (n ths case, groceres) wihou the oner s consen (y sealng). 7 Bed on

6 The Court notes that the statement of chges in Mland Disict Cot was used as the hagng duen prit the Respndent's appeal to, and nvtn by, e Crcuit Cou of Malad.7 Back's L Ditionar 14 1 3 (6th ed 990) denes "steal as llws:

This te is oonl ued in dients aren take, teal, and ca away), and denotesthe omission o the that is, the lonius taking an aring awa of the pesonal pope ofanote, and withut ight and witht eae nsent o we, and wih inent to keep o aese wonglly

1 3

g g p p

,


24/24

.

te deniton o depve" t § 7- 10 1 ( c), this ting involved te intet to depive te owne os popety on emnent b sis Accodngly te Responent s convicted o tef unde

povision o § 7- 1 4 tt qules s geneic tef nd tus s ggrvted lony e DHS teee s met its brden to demonste by ce d convincng evidence t teRespondent is emovble s cged.

Order

e Respondent's Motion to Teminte poceedings is deied

e emov cage nde IA § 237()(2)(A)(i) is sustined

e cse ill emin sceduled mste caend eng te ing o ny d ll pplctions elie Any pplictions not led t te next mste clend eing will bedeemed bndoned

Dte:

(teral citatin omed).

14

p p

,

vera sama, a076 581 488 (bia july 17, 2015)

Documents