Violation of "No Contact" Portion of Protective Order Supported Removal

Cespedes v. Lynch, 805 F.3d 1274 (11/19/15) (Published) - The 10th holds the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasonably interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), which says an alien is removable if s/he "violates the portion of a domestic violence protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury." Mr. Cespedes violated the no-contact part of a pretrial protective order. The relevant Utah statute says it authorizes such orders because of the "likelihood of repeated violence directed at victims of domestic violence." The 10th says that, while it might or might not have a different opinion, the BIA could interpret § 1227(a)(2)(E) to mean that a no-contact part of a protective order involves protecting against violence. This is so because contact in the circumstances of a domestic violence situation could lead to violence. The 10th describes this as the "nips-in-the-bud" interpretation. No actual violence was necessarily required by the statute. It was also okay, the 10th says, for the BIA not to require the state court to have found the no-contact portion of the order was meant to protect against violence. That is not a finding a state court would likely make, the 10th says.