Case Explained: SOTERO RIVERA-MENDOZA 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 respective state convictions constituted crimes “of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). The court held that this federal statute encompasses child endangerment offenses where a minor is placed in danger but not actually harmed, requires a mens rea of at least criminal negligence and an actus reus of placing a child in a situation likely to produce bodily or mental harm, and applies to individuals who are neither the child’s parent nor legal guardian. In reaching this conclusion, the panel applied traditional tools of statutory interpretation following the Supreme Court’s decision in *Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, which rejected *Chevron* deference, and determined that the statute’s best reading aligns with interpretations by the BIA and sister circuits regarding the unitary nature of the offense categories and the legislative intent to broadly cover crimes against children. The court specifically found that Leon-Briviesca’s conviction under California Penal Code § 273a(a) for cruelty to a child and Rivera-Mendoza’s convictions under Oregon Revised Statute § 163.545 for child neglect both satisfied these federal elements, rejecting arguments regarding insufficient mens rea and vagueness. Consequently, the petitions are denied, leaving in place the immigration orders finding the petitioners removable or ineligible for cancellation of removal based on their criminal convictions. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.