Matter of Martin CHAIREZ-Castrejon, Respondent; Matter of Vera SAMA, Respondent (agency decision, September 6, 2016)

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General had referred the cases of Martin Chairez-Castrejon and Vera Sama to himself for review of the Board’s decisions concerning the proper approach to determining whether a criminal statute is divisible under Descamps v. United States. The cases had been automatically stayed while review was pending. After the Supreme Court granted review and decided Mathis v. United States, the Attorney General lifted the stay and remanded both cases to the Board for any appropriate action. The order did not decide the divisibility issue or resolve either respondent’s underlying immigration claims.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i)
• Outcome: The stay was lifted, and the cases were remanded to the Board for appropriate action.
• Key point: The Attorney General returned the referred cases to the Board after the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathis changed the posture of the pending divisibility question.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 796 (A.G. 2016) Interim Decision #3869

    Matter of Martin CHAIREZ-Castrejon, Respondent
            Matter of Vera SAMA, Respondent
           Decided by Attorney General September 6, 2016

                      U.S. Department of Justice
                     Office of the Attorney General

The Attorney General lifted the stay and remanded these cases to the Board of Immigration Appeals for appropriate action.

             BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
By Attorney General Order No. 3583-2015 (Oct. 30, 2015), I directed

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”), pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2015), to refer to me the above-captioned cases for review of the Board’s decisions. The Board’s decisions were automatically stayed pending my review. To assist me in my review, I invited the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs addressing the following issue:

What is the proper approach for determining “divisibility” within the meaning of Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013)? In particular, does Descamps require that a criminal statute be treated as “divisible” for purposes of the modified categorical approach only if, under applicable law, jurors must be unanimous as to the version of the offense committed?

After the parties and interested amici submitted their briefs, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Mathis v. United States, No. 15-6092, a case presenting the question of the appropriate method for determining “divisibility” in the context of a criminal prosecution. See 136 S. Ct. 894 (2016) (mem.). On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mathis. See 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). I now hereby lift the stay and remand these cases to the Board for any appropriate action.

                                     796