The following excerpt is from De Diego v. Sessions, 857 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2017):
for purposes of the INA, we apply a three-step process set forth in Descamps v. United States , U.S. , 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). See AlmanzaArenas v. Lynch , 815 F.3d 469, 475 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
At the first step, we ask whether the elements of the alien's state statute of conviction criminalize more conduct than, or the same conduct as, the elements of a generic federal offense included in the definition of "aggravated felony" set forth at 1101(a)(43). See id. (quoting LopezValencia v. Lynch , 798 F.3d 863, 86768 (9th Cir. 2015) ). Under this categorical approach, if "the elements of the state crime are the same as or narrower than the elements of the federal offense, then the state crime is a categorical match and every conviction under that statute qualifies as an aggravated felony." LopezValencia , 798 F.3d at 867. By contrast, if the elements of the state statute of conviction criminalize more conduct than the elements of the generic federal offense, then the state statute is overbroad and is not a categorical match. Id . at 86768.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.