Duan Le v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 196 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). · Go Syfert
Duan Le v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 196 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
56 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Carlos Ibarra-Leyva v. Jeh Johnson, Secretary (ca5, 2015-08-19) · Strongest negative: Ming Lam Sui v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (ca2, 2001-05-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Ming Lam Sui v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
2d Cir. · 2001 · signal: but see · confidence high
See Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir.2001); Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 790 (5th Cir.2000); Albillo-Figueroa v. INS, 221 F.3d 1070, 1072 (9th Cir.2000); Coronado-Durazo v. INS, 123 F.3d 1322, 1324 (9th Cir.1997); Ramsey v. INS, 55 F.3d 580, 582 (11th Cir.1995); but see Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carlos Ibarra-Leyva v. Jeh Johnson, Secretary
5th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that driving 'under the influence with serious bodily injury, which required only that the defendant "operated a vehicle while under the influence” and "that as a result of such operation he caused serious bodily injury to another,” was a crime of violence), abrogated by Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 , 125 S.Ct. 377 , 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004); United States v. Moore, 38 F.3d 977, 981 (8th Cir.1994) ("[Involuntary manslaughter] is a crime which, by definition, always results in the unlawful death of another human being.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Son Duc Tran v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Omar v. INS, 298 F.3d 710, 715-16 (8th Cir.2002); Park, 252 F.3d at 1023-24 ; Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir.2001); Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tran v. Atty Gen USA (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
See Omar v. INS, 298 F.3d 710, 715-16 (8th Cir. 2002); Park, 252 F.3d at 1023-24 ; Tapia Garcia v. INS, 237 F.3d 1216, 1222 (10th Cir. 2001); Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Torres-Ruiz
10th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
The Eleventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Le v. United States Attorney Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. R. Gonzalez-Lopez
8th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that the crime of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury is a crime of violence under § 16(a) because "[c]learly, serious bodily injury is included as an element of this offense," which element "includes the actual use of physical force") with Bazan- Keyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600, 609 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that the "use" prong contained in § 16(a) required an intentional use of force and therefore a defendant's prior conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle is not a crime of violence under § 16(a)) and United…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Roberto Gonzalez-Lopez
8th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999) (holding that the crime of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury is a crime of violence under § 16(a) because “[ejlearly, serious bodily injury is included as an element of this offense,” which element “includes the actual use of physical force”) with Bazan Reyes v. INS, 256 F.3d 600, 609 (7th Cir.2001) (holding that the “use” prong contained in § 16(a) required an intentional use of force and therefore a defendant’s prior conviction for homicide by intoxicated use of a vehicle is not a crime of violence under § 16(a))…
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Osvaldo Rubio
11th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Omar v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (2×)
8th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Tapia Garcia, 237 F.3d at 1222-23 (10th Cir.) (generic elements of offense satisfy § 16(b)); Le, 196 F.3d at 1354 (11th Cir.) (crime of violence under § 16(a)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Omar, Ins v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
8th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Tapia Garcia, 237 F.3d at 1222-23 (10th Cir.) (generic elements of offense satisfy § 16(b)); Le, 196 F.3d at 1354 (11th Cir.) (crime of violence under § 16(a)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RAMOS
BIA · 2002 · confidence medium
In Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that driving under the influence with serious bodily injury, in violation of section 316.193(3) of the Florida Statutes, was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 (a) because the use of physical force was an element of the crime.
cited Cited "see" James R. Brooks v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Immigration and Naturalization Service
11th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353-54 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Masoud Bahar v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, Immigration and Naturalization Service
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353-54 (11th Cir.1999).
discussed Cited "see" Fernandez-Bernal v. Attorney General of the United States (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
We have previously said that this provision strips us of jurisdiction to review a final order of removal of an alien who is removable “based on a conviction for an offense enumerated in the statute.” Galindo-Del Valle, 213 F.3d at 598 ; see Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Fernando Galindo-Del Valle v. The Attorney General, Immigration & Naturalization Service
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le, 196 F.3d at 1354.
cited Cited "see" Robert A. Lettman v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353-54 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Lettman v. Reno
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352,1353-54 (11th Cir.1999).
cited Cited "see" Lettman v. Reno
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352,1353-54 (11th Cir. 1999).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Leocal v. Ashcroft
SCOTUS · 2004 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Le, supra, at 1354 ; and Omar v. INS, 298 F. 3d 710, 715-718 (CA8 2002), with United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F. 3d 1140, 1145-1146 (CA9 2001); Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F. 3d 200, 205-206 (CA2 2001); Bazan-Reyes v. INS, 256 F. 3d 600, 609-611 (CA7 2001); and United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F. 3d 921, 926-927 (CA5), amended, 262 F. 3d 479 (CA5 2001) (per curiam); see also Ursu v. INS, 20 Fed.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Vargas-Duran
5th Cir. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Trinidad-Acquino, 259 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he ‘crime of violence’ definitions do not require an intentional use of force, but they do require a volitional act.”), Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 206-08 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Although an accident may properly be said to involve force, one cannot be said to use force in an accident as one might use force to pry open a heavy, jammed door.” (emphasis in original)), and Bazan-Reyes v. I.N.S., 256 F.3d 600, 609-11 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[O]ur finding that the word ‘use’ requires volitional conduct pr…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Enrique Vargas-Duran (2×)
5th Cir. · 2003 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) ("[T]he 'crime of violence’ definitions do not require an intentional use of force, but they do require a volitional act."), Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 206-08 (2d Cir.2001) ("Although an accident may properly be said to involve force, one cannot be said to use force in an accident as one might use force to pry open a heavy, jammed door.” (emphasis in original)), and Bazan-Reyes v. I.N.S., 256 F.3d 600, 609-11 (7th Cir.2001) ("[OJur finding that the word 'use' requires volitional conduct prohibits a finding …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Ivarbo-Martell
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is “crime of violence” within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Perez-Velazquez
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is “crime of violence” within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Chapa-Garza
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is “crime of violence” within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Saldana-Roldan
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is “crime of violence” within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Goytia-Campos (2×)
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is “crime of violence” within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States of America v. Moises Chapa-Garza, Also Known as Moises Garza, Also Known as Moises Garza Chapa, Also Known as Moises G Chapa, Also Known as Moises Chapa, - United States of America v. Julian Ricardo Goytia-Campos, Also Known as Julian Ricardo Goitia-Campos, - United States of America v. Alfonso Guadalupe Perez-Velazquez, Also Known as Erick Lee - United States of America v. Francisco Javier Saldana-Roldan, - United States of America v. Epifanio Ivarbo-Martell, Also Known as El Chino
5th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare Le v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 196 F.3d 1352, 1354 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding conviction for causing serious bodily injury while driving under the influence is "crime of violence" within § 16(a) because one element of offense is actual use of physical force, and declining to address scope of § 16(b)). 8 Following Chapa-Garza, three circuits have addressed the mens rea requirement of § 16(b), exacerbating the circuit-split.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hamid B. Mohammed v. John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Le v. United *1248 States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th Cir.1999). 2 At the time Mohammed pled guilty in July 1996 to the two charges of receiving stolen property in violation of Florida law, the INA’s definition of aggravated felony did not encompass that offense.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bazan-Reyes, Jose A. v. INS
7th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare United States v. Chapa Garza, 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir. 2001) (holding that sec. 16(b) requires recklessness with respect to the risk that intentional force may be used in the course of committing the offense), and United States v. Parson, 955 F.2d 858, 866 (3d Cir. 1999) (suggesting, in dicta, that DWI is not a crime of violence because sec. 16(b) requires a willingness to risk having to commit a crime of specific intent), with Park v. INS, No. 97-71373, 2001 WL 604223 (9th Cir. June 5, 2001) (holding that a reckless mens rea is sufficient to constitute a crime of violence under sec…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jose A. Bazan-Reyes, Wincenty Z. MacIasowicz and Arnoldo Gomez-Vela v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and John D. Ashcroft
7th Cir. · 2001 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Compare United States v. Chapa-Garza, 243 F.3d 921, 927 (5th Cir.2001) (holding that § 16(b) requires recklessness with respect to the risk that intentional force may be used in the course of committing the offense), and United States v. Parson, 955 F.2d 858, 866 (3d Cir.1992) (suggesting, in dicta, that DWI is not a crime of violence because § 16(b) requires a willingness to risk having to commit a crime of specific intent), with Park v. INS, 252 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that a reckless mens rea is sufficient to constitute a crime of violence under § 16(a) and § 16(b)), Tapia-Gar…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Judicial Complaint, In Re:
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th Cir. 1999).2 At the time Mohammed pled guilty in July 1996 to the two charges of receiving stolen property in violation of Florida law, the INA’s definition of aggravated felony did not encompass that offense.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Judicial Complaint, In Re:
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Le v. United States Attorney General, 196 F.3d 1352, 1353 (11th Cir.1999).2 2 In its briefs, the INS argued that we may lack jurisdiction to hear Mohammed's petition because Mohammed is appealing only the BIA's resolution of his "motion to reopen," and the denial of a motion to reopen may be a discretionary decision as to which judicial review is foreclosed by IIRIRA.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Duan LE, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondents
98-3609.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Dec 3, 1999.
196 F.3d 1352
Louis Casuso, Law Offices of Louis Ca-suso, Miami, FL, for Petitioner., Michael P. Lindemann, Dept. of Justice/Civil Div., Washington, DC, for U.S. Atty. Gen., David V. Bernal, Dept, of Justice, Janet Reno, U.S. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Pauline Terrelonge, Douglas E. Ginsburg, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div., Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for INS.
Anderson, Tjoflat, Fay.
Cited by 33 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The sole question presented in this appeal is whether the offense of which petitioner was convicted is an aggravated felony under the controlling federal law. We hold that it is and meets the requirements of section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F).

Petitioner, Duan Le, a Vietnam citizen, was convicted of two third degree felonies — driving under the influence with serious bodily injury [1] and driving with a suspended license with serious bodily injury [2] —on December 30, 1996. On June 24, 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) filed a notice to appear with the Executive Office of Immigration Review. The INS charged that Mr. Le was subject to removal from the United States because he had been convicted of an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the INA. On September 11, 1997, the immigration judge found Mr. Le subject to deportation because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. Mr. Le appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) on September 23, 1997. On October 21, 1998, the Board affirmed the immigration judge’s removal order and dismissed the appeal.

Mr. Le appeals the Board’s determination that driving under the influence with serious bodily injury is an aggravated felony under section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that Mr. Le was convicted of an aggravated felony. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review Mr. Le’s deportation because section 242(a)(2)(C) of the INA provides that we do not have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Consequently, we AFFIRM the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals and DISMISS the petition for review.

We review the Board’s statutory interpretation of the INA de novo, but we will defer to the Board’s interpretation if it[*1354] is reasonable. See Asencio v. INS, 37 F.3d 614 (11th Cir.1994). Accordingly, at issue here is whether the Board’s determination that the crime of driving under the influence with serious bodily injury is a crime of violence and therefore an aggravated felony as defined in section 101(a)(43)(F) of the INA is a reasonable interpretation of that statute.

Section 242(a)(2)(C) of the INA bars judicial review of a final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having been convicted of an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). The term aggravated felony is defined as “a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of Title 18, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F). Mr. Le was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of thirty-three months; thus, the only issue that remains is whether his crime, driving under the influence with serious bodily injury, was a crime of violence. If Mr. Le’s offense was a crime of violence, this Court will be barred from reviewing the Board’s final order of removal.

The term “crime of violence” is defined as

“(a) an offense that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.”

18 U.S.C. § 16. Mr. Le was convicted under Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193(3). Florida law establishes two elements for this offense. The first element requires that Mr. Le operated a vehicle while under the influence. The second element requires that as a result of such operation he caused serious bodily injury to another. See id. Clearly, serious bodily injury is included as an element of this offense. Consequently, Mr. Le’s conviction for driving under the influence with serious bodily injury satisfies the definition of a “crime of violence” under section 16(a) of Title 18 because one element of the offense includes the actual' use of physical force.

The government proffers the argument that Le’s offense of driving under the influence involved a substantial risk of the use of physical force even without the additional aggravating factor of serious bodily injury and thus that it meets the definition of a “crime of violence” under section 16(b) of Title 18. We need not address that argument here because Mr. Le’s crime satisfies the definition of “crime of violence” under section 16(a) of Title 18. Therefore, because Mr. Le’s crime was a crime of violence that resulted in a sentence to him of more than one year, Mr. Le was convicted of an aggravated felony and we are barred from reviewing Mr. Le’s removal by section 242(a)(2)(C) of the INA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C).

AFFIRMED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

1

. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193(3)(1996).

2

. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 322.34(3)(1996).