## Facts

- Lyonel Jean-Louis, a Haitian national, was admitted to the United States as a refugee in 1994 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1996.
- In 2001, before he accrued seven years of continuous lawful permanent residence, he pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania to simple assault involving his wife’s daughter, who was under twelve.
- The conviction was under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701(b)(2), which grades simple assault more severely when the victim is under twelve and the actor is at least twenty-one.
- Pennsylvania simple assault (§ 2701(a)) can be committed with varying mental states, including intentionally, knowingly, recklessly causing bodily injury, or negligently causing bodily injury with a deadly weapon.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings alleging removability under INA § 237(a)(2)(E)(i) (crime of child abuse); Jean-Louis conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(a).

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701(b)(2) is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) for purposes of the INA stop-time rule and eligibility for cancellation of removal.
2. Whether the court should follow the Attorney General’s Matter of Silva-Trevino approach allowing inquiry beyond the record of conviction, or apply the circuit’s categorical/modified categorical methodology.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded.
- The court held that a conviction under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2701(b)(2) is not categorically a CIMT.
- The court declined to apply Silva-Trevino’s expanded factual inquiry and instead applied the circuit’s categorical/modified categorical approach.
- Because the offense was not a CIMT, it did not trigger the stop-time rule, and Jean-Louis was not rendered ineligible for cancellation of removal on that ground.

## Legal Principles

- A CIMT generally requires inherently base, vile, or depraved conduct, typically reflected in a vicious motive or corrupt mind; mens rea is central to the determination.
- Under the categorical approach, CIMT analysis turns on the statutory elements of conviction, not the particular underlying conduct.
- The modified categorical approach permits consultation of limited record materials only when a statute is divisible into alternative elements, some turpitudinous and some not.
- A grading enhancement based on victim status (such as age) does not, by itself, supply the culpable mental state required for a CIMT when the underlying offense can be committed through recklessness or negligence.
- Circuit precedent controlling CIMT methodology may limit deference to agency frameworks that authorize consideration of facts beyond the record of conviction.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Pennsylvania simple assault graded under § 2701(b)(2) is not categorically a CIMT because the statute covers reckless or negligent conduct, and victim age alone does not supply the culpable mental state required for moral turpitude; the court therefore granted review and remanded for further proceedings on cancellation eligibility.


Jean-Louis v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 582 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2009)