Case Explained: MARTIN LEON-BRIVIESCA V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 The Ninth Circuit denied petitions for review filed by Martin Leon-Briviesca and Sotero Rivera-Mendoza, affirming the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determinations that their state convictions constituted crimes “of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), thereby rendering Leon-Briviesca removable and making Rivera-Mendoza ineligible for cancellation of removal. Applying the traditional tools of statutory interpretation following the Supreme Court’s decision in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, which rejected *Chevron* deference, the panel held that § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) encompasses child endangerment crimes where a minor is placed in danger but not actually harmed. The court established that the statute requires a mens rea of at least criminal negligence and an actus reus involving placing a child in a situation likely to produce bodily or mental harm under circumstances constituting a gross deviation from accepted standards. Additionally, the panel determined that the statute applies to individuals who are neither the child’s parent nor legal guardian. The court concluded that Leon-Briviesca’s conviction for cruelty to a child under California Penal Code § 273a(a) satisfied these elements, rejecting his arguments regarding insufficient mens rea and void-for-vagueness challenges. Similarly, the court found that Rivera-Mendoza’s convictions for child neglect under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.545 met the statutory requirements, rejecting his argument that the Oregon statute covered a lesser degree of risk than required by federal law. Consequently, the petitions were denied, and the immigration orders stood. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.