Matter of Pedroza (PUB)
**CIMT/CPC s 484, petty offense exception**
In order for an offense to be “described under” section 237(a)(2)(A)(i) and render an alien ineligible for cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(1)(C), all aspects of section 237(a)(2) relating to the criminal offense must be met: the respondent must have been convicted of an offense that qualifies as a CIMT and the offense must be punishable by a sentence to imprisonment for a year or longer. Conversely, a respondent who has been convicted of a CIMT for which the maximum sentence possible would be less than 1 year, and which qualifies under the petty offense exception, would not be convicted of an offense “described under” either section 212(a)(2) or section 237(a)(2) of the Act and would therefore not be barred from cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1)(C), if otherwise eligible. Here, while there is no dispute that the respondent’s 2001 California “shoplifting” theft offense is a CIMT, the respondent’s record of conviction reflects that he was convicted under CPC section 484 for a misdemeanor theft offense. The California court’s treatment of the respondent’s offense as a “misdemeanor” theft places the crime within the “petty offense” exception in section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II). Respondent has also demonstrated that his California theft conviction is not for an offense “described under” section 237(a)(2) of the Act.
newimmigrationcases
