John Coquico v. Loretta E. Lynch

Good Law
789 F.3d 1049·2015 WL 3756470·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10174
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 17, 201509-73867California2,758 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Scannlain, J.

We must decide whether “unlawful laser activity” under state law is a crime involving moral turpitude.

I

On September 1, 2006, John Coquico, a' citizen of the Philippines, was convicted of misdemeanor “unlawful laser activity” in violation of California Penal Code (“CaLPenal Code”) § 417.26, after using a laser device in the hallway of the Alameda County criminal courthouse. A year later, he was also convicted of second degree robbery in violation of CaLPenal Code § 211, and the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) sought his removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) as an alien convicted of two or more crimes involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”). See INA § 237(a)(2)(A)(ii), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(ii).

Though an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) agreed with the DHS and found Coquico removable, on appeal the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) found the IJ’s reasoning insufficient and remanded the case so she could provide “a more complete explanation” of her findings.

On remand, the IJ again found Coquico removable due to his convictions under CaLPenal Code § 211 and § 417.26. Most relevant here, she asserted that “unlawful laser activity”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.