## Facts

- Francisco Jose Morales-Alegria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was convicted in California under Cal. Penal Code § 476 (forgery involving fictitious or altered financial instruments).
- The Department of Homeland Security charged him as removable for having been convicted of an aggravated felony: an offense relating to forgery with a term of imprisonment of at least one year, under INA §§ 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 101(a)(43)(R).
- An Immigration Judge found him removable as charged.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal, concluding the § 476 conviction qualified as an aggravated felony.
- In the court of appeals, Morales-Alegria argued (1) § 476 is overbroad because it allegedly lacks a knowledge-of-falsity element required by generic forgery, and (2) the government did not establish he received a sentence of at least one year.

## Issues

1. Whether a conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 476 categorically qualifies as an offense relating to forgery under INA § 101(a)(43)(R).
2. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review a challenge to the “at least one year” imprisonment requirement when that argument was not presented to the BIA.

## Decision

- The court denied the petition for review.
- Applying the categorical approach, the court held Cal. Penal Code § 476 is not broader than generic forgery because, as interpreted by California courts, intent to defraud under § 476 requires knowledge that the instrument is fictitious.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the sentence-length argument because Morales-Alegria did not exhaust that issue before the BIA.

## Legal Principles

- Under the categorical approach, a state offense qualifies as an INA aggravated felony only if the minimum conduct criminalized by the statute falls within the generic federal definition of the enumerated offense (here, forgery and offenses “relating to” forgery).
- Generic forgery includes falsity of the instrument, intent to defraud, and knowledge of the instrument’s falsity; a state statute is not overbroad if state case law supplies the knowledge requirement as part of intent to defraud.
- Courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review removal-related claims not first raised before the BIA; failure to exhaust a distinct legal argument bars judicial review of that issue.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld removal based on a California § 476 conviction, holding it categorically constitutes an offense relating to forgery for aggravated-felony purposes, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an unexhausted challenge to whether the record proved a sentence of at least one year.


Morales-Alegria v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2006)