Happy Monday,
Today brings a helpful decision from the immigration world. In Solorio-Ruiz v. Sessions, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-73085 (9th Cir. 2018), the Court held that California carjacking is not a crime of violence under
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), and its prior holding to the contrary
in Nieves-Medrano is no longer good law after Johnson.
Basically, under Johnson v. United
States, 559 U.S. 133, 140 (2010), to qualify as a crime of violence, the offense must require not just physical
force, but “violent
force—that is, force capable of causing physical pain or
injury to another person.”
Under California law, however, the carjacking
statute does not require the violent force that Johnson
demands, and thus the statute is not a crime of violence. (Johnson applies because the aggravated-felony definition in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) incorporates the “crime of violence”
definition in 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)).
The Court further noted an open question as to whether California carjacking is a
theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), and remanded the case for the BIA to consider that issue.
Finally, the opinion also commented that it is unclear whether Becerril-Lopez (which held PC 211 was a COV) remains
good law after Johnson.
