Tenth Circuit: Birhanu v. Wilkinson

 

By considering the information provided and holding a hearing on the matter, the immigration judge took care in determining the competency of the pro se alien defendant sufficient to assure fundamental rights of Due Process; although the alien reported that the voices that he was hearing in his head disturbed his thought processes, his demeanor appeared sufficiently lucid and responsive.

Right to counsel claim under the Rehabilitation Act required administrative exhaustion.

For immigration law purposes, recklessly threatening substantial property damage with actual intent to interrupt public access to a portion of the building is a crime of moral turpitude.  The specific intent of the state statute is a sufficiently aggravating factor under circuit precedent.

Although subjective ability to dissociate and reflect is relevant to determining whether two acts are divisible, a three day gap sufficed to establish the division as a matter of law.

Chevron deference to agency on the question of whether the agency should consider the insanity element of the criminal plea, as a prior apparently contradictory agency interpretation spoke to the evidentiary bounds of the agency's consideration, and the cited opinion addressed the appropriate substantive grounds for the agency's consideration.

Concur/dissent:

Agency shoudl have considered mental health element of plea in relevant conviction; arbitrary application of precedent dejustifies deference.


Birhanu v. Wilkinson