Judicial Watch • Court Says Kidnapping Not Serious Enough to Warrant Deportation

Court Says Kidnapping Not Serious Enough to Warrant Deportation

Court Says Kidnapping Not Serious Enough to Warrant Deportation

JANUARY 10, 2013

In what may seem like a bad joke, a U.S. federal appellate court has spared an illegal immigrant convicted of kidnapping from deportation ruling that it’s not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude.

The decision, issued this week by the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, rambles on for 27 pages and is almost comical. “This undoubtedly appears to be a difficult question at first glance,” it reads. “Kidnapping is a serious crime, and our instincts may be that it would meet the moral turpitude definition. Even for serious offenses, we must look to the specific elements of the statute of conviction and compare them to the definition of crimes involving moral turpitude.”

The case involves a Mexican man named Javier Castrijon-Garcia who entered the United States illegally in 1989 and incidentally has three American-born anchor babies. He has twice been convicted for driving with a suspended license (yes, California gives illegal aliens driver’s licenses) and in 1992 pleaded guilty to attempted kidnapping. He received a suspended sentence of 300 days in jail and 36 months of probation.

Years after the kidnapping case, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finally earmarked Castrijon-Garcia for removal. He appealed but an immigration judge found that he was deportable because the kidnapping conviction is a categorical crime of moral turpitude. The Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s final authority on immigration matters, agreed noting that it had previously listed kidnapping as an example of a crime of moral turpitude and that California’s penal code also defined it as involving moral turpitude.

But the 9th circuit, the most overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, disagrees writing in its decision that precedent dictates that “non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim.” The type of “simple kidnapping” that this illegal immigrant committed doesn’t necessarily involve such evil intent and harm therefore it doesn’t constitute moral turpitude, according to the San Francisco-based court.

The ruling orders the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, to “conduct a modified categorical analysis” of the illegal immigrant’s crime. Keep in mind that the BIA has already determined that kidnapping is a serious enough crime that merits deportation, so the court is essentially ordering it to make an exception or change the criminal code.

Over the years the 9th Circuit Court has been kind to illegal immigrants with criminal records. In separate 2010 rulings it spared an illegal alien from Mexico and a gangbanger from El Salvador—both convicted of serious crimes—from deportation.

A few years earlier the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court ruling calling for the deportation of a Mexican immigrant convicted of having sex with a minor. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit claimed that while the crime violated state law and was unwise and socially unacceptable, it wasn’t base, vile or depraved enough to warrant deportation.

 

 

 

Sign Up for Updates!


© 2010-2014 Judicial Watch, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Uncle Vladdi

    ALL crimes, by definition, breach Morality. The gist of the moral law is simple: “Do Not Attack First.” A choice to attack first defines one as the predatory criminal aggressor, and the attacked as one’s innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it.

    So for these “judges” to say that child-molesting rape, freedom-removing kidnapping, etc, are not really crimes, only demonstrates their baseless, racist idolatry: their use of the false term “moral turpitude” means nothing:

    “It (a crime) can be committed without any intention of harming anyone, it need not result in actual harm, and it does not necessarily involve a protected class of victim. Only truly unconscionable conduct surpasses the threshold of moral turpitude.”

    Yet crimes, by definition, *must* involve intent – and of course they need not result in actual harm (because even foiled, attempted crimes, are still crimes, due to intent) and they only need involve a human victim, not – as these group-might-made-rights worshipping liars pretend, a “protected class” of victim (like only sharia does)!

    And finally, ALL crimes are examples of unconscionable conduct because they involve the intent to attack innocent others first!

    There is no false “threshold of moral turpitude” at all, beyond basic intent (guilty mind/”mens rea”)!
    And if anyone should know this, it’s a “judge!”

    So, what’s really going on? Well, of course, it’s only the usual libertine liberalism in play:

    Liberals are racists – they always assume that ONLY White, Western people (including, of course, the Jews in Israel,) are INTELLIGENT enough to be judged guilty of being truly evil, while all their pet “People Of Colour” (including, of course, the “swarthy palestinians,”) just can’t help being violent animals, the poor oppressed little dears, so they’ll always indulge their crimes, much as one ignores the new puppy as it pees on the rugs.

    ;-)

  • Mr. Constitution

    No mockery of justice here, folks. The fact is, California prosecutors take a very liberal stance on what kidnapping is in this State. Even family members bringing a runaway daughter home have been charged and convicted of kidnapping under the kidnapping statute. That’s nothing like the concept we have of kidnapping. What’s next, charges of kidnapping because you try to take your children to a Sunday church service but they don’t want to go? Technically, that would be kidnapping under the statute too. The 9th Circuit correctly perceived a problem with the statute. And frankly, there is no need to worry that kidnapping of the ugly kind will not be punished. The court opinion only states that a conviction is not enough by itself. But the authorities can still look at the details of the conviction to see if there are facts that still warrant the consequences. I applaud the 9th Circuit for a careful, well-written, discerning approach to a tough problem in the law.

  • kylefclark

    Utterly unconscionable, the 9th circus court makes a mockery of the meaning of justice again!