[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-138060-105":59,"doc-detail-138060-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","15-73514-order-and-amended-opinion","15-73514 - ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION","","United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues an order and amended opinion on a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The court affirms the BIA’s interpretation of “single scheme of criminal misconduct” as an exception rule for removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), and holds the petitioner removable because his convictions were not found to arise from a single scheme under BIA precedent. The panel rejects multiple challenges, including exhaustion, Chevron deference limits, constitutional avoidance, and retroactivity, and also upholds denial of discretionary relief. Separate dissents address application of precedent and Chevron-related concerns.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/15-73514-order-and-amended-opinion/138060/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/15-73514-order-and-amended-opinion/138060.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Arica Lee","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-08-23",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What legal issue did the Ninth Circuit focus on in the amended opinion?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The panel upheld the BIA’s interpretation of “single scheme of criminal misconduct” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an exception to removal for certain combinations of crimes.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why did the court conclude the petitioner was removable?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The court determined the petitioner’s crimes did not arise out of a single scheme under controlling BIA precedent, even though the petitioner argued the conduct should be treated as part of the same overall plan.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What were the key points of the dissents?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Judge Fisher argued the BIA misapplied precedent, emphasizing whether there was a “substantial interruption” between crimes. Judge Collins (with Judge Bea joining) dissented from denial of rehearing en banc, criticizing the effect of Chevron doctrine in this context.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},138060,1787473862,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":129,"read_time":144},8796096645457,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/800003749518d68ffe3?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1779345340919836971","FOR PUBLICATION  \nUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT  \nISTVAN SZONYI,  \nPetitioner,  \nv.  \nWILLIAM P. BARR,  \nActing Attorney General,  \nRespondent.  \nNo. 15-73514  \nAgency No. A010-977-327  \nORDER AND AMENDED OPINION  \nOn Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals  \nArgued and Submitted October 10, 2018 Portland, Oregon  \nFiled February 13, 2019  \nAmended November 13, 2019  \nBefore: Raymond C. Fisher, Richard R. Clifton, and Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judges.  \nOrder;  \nDissent to Order by Judge Collins; Opinion by Judge Clifton; Dissent by Judge Fisher  \nSUMMARY*  \nImmigration  \nThe panel filed: 1) an order amending its prior opinion, denying panel rehearing, and denying, on behalf of the court, rehearing en banc; and 2) an amended opinion denying Istvan Szonyi’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.  \nIn the amended opinion, the panel upheld the BIA’s interpretation of the phrase, “single scheme of criminal misconduct,”which operates as an exception to the ground of removal, under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), for a person who has been convicted of“two or more crimes involving moral turpitude, not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct.”  \nIn Matter ofAdetiba, 20 I. & N. Dec. 506 (BIA 1992), the BIA affirmed the following interpretation of the phrase“single scheme of criminal misconduct”: “when an alien has performed an act, which, in and of itself, constitutes a complete, individual, and distinct crime, he is deportable when he again commits such an act, even though one may closely follow the other, be similar in character, and even be part of an overall plan of criminal misconduct.” The BIA said that it would apply this interpretation in all circuits except those that had adopted more expansive interpretations. That exception applied to this circuit, whose previous interpretation of the phrase encompassed distinct crimes that  \n* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  \nwere part of the same overall plan. However, in Matter of Islam, 25 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 2011), the BIA announced that it would apply the interpretation from Matter ofAdetibain all circuits.  \nSzonyi, a lawful permanent resident, forced three women to commit sexual acts under threat of violence over a five-to six-hour period. For those acts, Szonyi pled guilty to two counts of oral copulation in violation of California Penal Code § 288a(c) and two counts of sexual penetration with a foreign object in violation of California Penal Code § 289. Based on these offenses, the BIA ultimately concluded that Szonyi was removable because his crimes did not arise out of a single scheme under BIA precedent.  \nThe panel rejected Szonyi’s argument that this court’s precedent forecloses the BIA’s interpretation of the phrase“single scheme of criminal misconduct,”upholding the BIA’s interpretation under principles of deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) . As a preliminary matter, the panel concluded that, because the BIA’s position appeared to be set based on its opinion in Matter of Islam at the time of Szonyi’s proceedings, Szonyi did not have to exhaust his challenge to the BIA’s interpretation.  \nObserving that, under Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the court does not defer, under Chevron, where a prior court decision holds that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute, the panel concluded that no circuit precedent held that the text of the statute unambiguously foreclosed the BIA’s interpretation here. The panel also rejected Szonyi’s contentions that the BIA’s interpretation was impermissible  \nbased on congressional intent and constitutional avoidance. With respect to the latter issue, the panel explained that the Supreme Court’s recent vagueness jurispru","cbCaif5owHoufnYO","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaif5owHoufnYO","pdf",283712,63,"English","# Summary\n## Amended opinion and removal standard\n## Panel’s analysis of deference, exhaustion, and retroactivity\n## Discretionary relief\n## Dissenting opinions","[{\"question\":\"What legal issue did the Ninth Circuit focus on in the amended opinion?\",\"answer\":\"The panel upheld the BIA’s interpretation of “single scheme of criminal misconduct” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) as an exception to removal for certain combinations of crimes.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the court conclude the petitioner was removable?\",\"answer\":\"The court determined the petitioner’s crimes did not arise out of a single scheme under controlling BIA precedent, even though the petitioner argued the conduct should be treated as part of the same overall plan.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the key points of the dissents?\",\"answer\":\"Judge Fisher argued the BIA misapplied precedent, emphasizing whether there was a “substantial interruption” between crimes. Judge Collins (with Judge Bea joining) dissented from denial of rehearing en banc, criticizing the effect of Chevron doctrine in this context.\"}]","15-73514 - ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION | PDF",159]