• Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Levin and Pangilinan PC

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691
Contact Us
  • Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Understanding BIA’s Decision on Plea Colloquy in Immigration Removal Cases

July 7, 2023 Philip Levin

BIA Holds That, Under The Modified Categorical Approach, An Immigration Judge May Consider The Transcript Of A Plea Colloquy In Determining The Factual Basis Of A Plea.

On April 28, 2023, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) dismissed the appeal of a decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) finding Respondent removable per INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) as one convicted of an aggravated felony crime of violence. The case had previously been before the BIA in 2017, at which time it was remanded to the IJ.

Respondent adjusted status to lawful permanent resident in 2000. Thirteen years later he was convicted of aggravated assault under Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 13-1203 and 13-1204(A)(2) and sentenced to 3.5 years in prison; he was subsequently placed into proceedings and charged with removability as above. The charge was sustained but, as noted, the Board subsequently remanded the record to the IJ to determine under which subsection of § 13-1203(A) Respondent had been convicted. In 2019, the IJ again ordered him removed, concluding that Respondent had been convicted under § 13-1203(A)(2) and that a conviction under this subsection, in conjunction with § 13-1204(A)(2), constituted an aggravated felony crime of violence.

Respondent did not seek relief from removal before the IJ but appealed the holding of removability, contending that the record did not reflect a conviction pursuant to § 13-1203(A)(2) and that the IJ had “impermissibly sustained the removability charge by relying on an exchange between the judge, the respondent’s defense counsel, and the respondent during the change of plea hearing.”

Initiating its analysis, the BIA first noted that § 13-1203(A) provides that a person commits assault by:

  1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or
  2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or
  3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person. 

Further, explained the decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over this matter, has held that § 13-1203(A) is overbroad and divisible. Arizona state courts have also found that the 3 subsections are separate offenses. The Board therefore applied the modified categorical approach to determine if Respondent’s conviction was for an aggravated felony.

As set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), in applying the modified categorical approach, a court can consider certain documents, including the charging document, the terms of the plea agreement or the transcript of the colloquy between the judge and defendant in which the factual basis for the plea is confirmed, or “some comparable judicial record of this information.” At Respondent’s change of plea hearing, the trial judge and Respondent’s defense attorney had discussed the plea, with counsel finally stating the factual basis as, “Intentionally placed the other in reasonable apprehension of fear” and Respondent had verbally agreed. Thus, found the Board, Respondent had specifically pled guilty to a violation of § 13-1203(A)(2) as the IJ had permissibly considered the transcript from the change of plea hearing, in effect the plea colloquy between the court and defendant in which the plea’s factual basis was confirmed.

On appeal, Respondent argued that his case was analogous to that of United States v. Marcia-Acosta, 780 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 2015), in which the Court of Appeals found the district court had erred by relying on a plea colloquy where the defendant’s lawyer recited the statement of facts on defendant’s behalf, indicating an intentional mens rea, but defendant himself had not admitted to the mens rea element of the offense. The BIA stated that Courts of Appeal have taken different approaches “with respect to the degree to which a criminal defendant must signify assent to representations [by counsel] made in a plea colloquy,” and that it did not need to reconcile the various approaches here because, contrary to Respondent’s assertion, this case is distinguishable from Marcia-Acosta. There, the defendant had “specifically assented to the underlying factual basis and admitted to the elements of the offense”; here, Respondent verbally agreed with the enumerated elements of § 13-1203(A)(2) when the trial judge was clarifying the mens rea element.

The Board further distinguished Marcia-Acosta as a case where the court had not narrowed the exact offense of conviction through the modified categorical approach’s “actual conviction documents or pleas”, whereas here the language of the colloquy was found to mirror that of  § 13-1203(A)(2). The BIA was therefore unpersuaded that the instant matter was governed by Marcia-Acosta.

Lastly, held the opinion, the factual basis for Respondent’s plea to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon under § 13-1204(A)(2), in which the underlying assault was committed by intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury under § 13-1203(A)(2) constituted a categorical crime of violence contrary to Respondent’s claim that the offense did not require the necessary level of force. The Board pointed out that, in fact, the Ninth Circuit had held that a conviction for aggravated assault under §§ 13-1203(A)(2) and 13-1204(A)(2) “does categorically constitute a crime of violence”. The appeal was dismissed. Matter of Cancinos-Mancio, 28 I&N Dec. 708 (BIA 2023).

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: BIA

Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • U.S. Visa Interview Waiver Program: Important 2025 Updates
  • New DOS Guidance on Mandating Social Media Review of all F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applicants and Possible Revocations: What You Need to Know
  • H-1B LOTTERY FY 2026 AND THE RECENT MODERNIZATION RULE 
  • Birthright Citizenship Under Fire: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Explained
  • BIA Holds That Its Prior Holding In Matter Of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), That An Objection To A Noncompliant Notice To Appear Will Generally Be Considered Timely If Raised Prior To The Close Of Pleadings Is Not A Change In Law, And Thus Matter Of Fernandes Applies Retroactively.

Practice Areas

  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

LEAVE A REVIEW

Leave a Review on Google

        

San Francisco Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2025 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Labor Certification
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Hearings & Appeals
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.