Uppal v. Holder

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that Canada’s aggravated assault statute did not define a crime involving moral turpitude because it did “not involv[e] a specific intent to injure . . . and [did] not requir[e] that the assault cause death or even serious bodily injury”
• declining to afford BIA decision Skidmore deference because its “analysis [was] neither thoroughly reasoned nor consistent with prior BIA and Ninth Circuit case law”
• remanding where the Board may have misconstrued statutory elements of crime and applied CIMT analysis inconsistent with case law
• “[T]he BIA’s caselaw uniformly indicates that an assault statute requiring only general intent cannot be categorically a CIMT.”
• “[T]o rise to the level of moral turpitude, an assault crime must involve a particular type of aggravating factor, one that says something about the turpitude or blameworthiness inherent in the action.”
• “Because the BIA failed to identify the elements of [the statute of conviction] correctly, its CIMT analysis, in which it compares the elements it has identified to the generic definition of moral turpitude, is misdirected and so merits no deference from this Court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).