Case Explained: ISHMAEL KOIGOR BANGS v. TODD BLANCHE, Attorney General,*

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Filed: 2026-08-11 The First Circuit vacated the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision and remanded the case, holding that a conviction under New Hampshire Revised Statutes § 641:5(II) for retaliation against a witness does not constitute an “aggravated felony” defined as an offense “relating to obstruction of justice” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Consequently, the petitioner is not deportable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on this conviction. The court applied the categorical approach to compare the elements of the state statute against the generic federal offense. The court determined that the generic federal offense of obstruction of justice requires a specific intent to interfere with the legal process, a mens rea requirement supported by Supreme Court precedent in *Pugin v. Garland* and First Circuit precedent in *Silva v. Garland*. In contrast, the New Hampshire statute criminalizes any unlawful act committed in retaliation against a witness or informant without requiring an intent to obstruct justice; it may be satisfied by acts motivated solely by revenge. Citing *State v. Baird*, where the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a conviction based on a desire to “get even” rather than an intent to interfere with proceedings, the First Circuit concluded that the state statute covers conduct broader than the generic federal offense. Because the statute criminalizes more conduct than the federal definition allows, it cannot serve as a predicate for removability. The court declined to address the petitioner’s claim regarding deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture given this dispositive ruling on removability. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.