## Facts

- Maria Lopez-Birrueta, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 1994 at age 14.
- She had a relationship with Gill Campos, a lawful permanent resident, and they had two children.
- Lopez-Birrueta testified (and the Immigration Judge found credible) that Campos repeatedly threatened and controlled her, including threatening to report her to immigration authorities.
- She also testified that Campos was violent toward their children, yelled at them, and drove them while intoxicated.
- In a recurring pattern, Campos struck one child (age three) on the legs with a stick in front of friends, causing red welts; similar beatings occurred two to three times per week, and the other child was treated similarly.
- In removal proceedings, Lopez-Birrueta sought VAWA special-rule cancellation of removal based on battery or extreme cruelty inflicted on her children by their lawful-permanent-resident father.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Immigration Appeals erred by concluding that repeated physical abuse causing injury to qualifying children did not amount to “battery” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A) (VAWA special-rule cancellation).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review.
- The court held that the described conduct qualified as “battery” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A).
- The court rejected the agency’s narrow construction of “battery” and “injury” in the VAWA cancellation context.
- The court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- For VAWA special-rule cancellation, “battery” is interpreted as a federal immigration-law standard informed by VAWA’s protective purpose, not by state criminal-law elements.
- Physical abuse resulting in injury to a qualifying child can satisfy the “battery” requirement; the violence need not be extreme or life-threatening.
- The statutory inquiry focuses on whether the child “has been battered”; later cessation of abuse or subsequent family dynamics does not negate past battery.
- When the agency denies relief based on an erroneous interpretation of a statutory term, the court may grant review and remand for application of the correct legal standard.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit concluded that repeated beatings of young children with an object that produced visible welts constituted “battery” for purposes of VAWA special-rule cancellation, and it remanded because the agency’s contrary ruling rested on an impermissibly narrow legal standard.


Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2011)