The following comes from aÂ decision released by the Tenth Circuit last week. Though the case involves immigration law, the discussion may be of interest to readers of this site.
To summarize, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings of Perez-Paredes, a Mexican native living in the US, after he was convicted under a Utah anti-piracy statute. On advice of his counsel, Perez-ParedesÂ agreed to leave the USÂ voluntarily, but later changed his mind and moved to reopen the removal proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. TheÂ Immigration Judge denied that request, a decision that was upheld by the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
Here, the Tenth Circuit denied a review of the BIA’s decision, holding thatÂ Perez-Paredes was not eligible for cancellation of removal. The Circuit explained (some citations removed and emphasis added):
To be eligible for cancellation of removal, the alien must show that he or she is of “good moral character.” 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1229b. An alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony or a crime involving moral turpitudeÂ is not eligible under Â§ 1229b…
…The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that any “theft offense (including receipt of stolen property) or burglary offense for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year” is an aggravated felony. Additionally, the Act provides that any “offense relating to commercial bribery, counterfeiting, forgery, or trafficking in vehicles the identification numbers of which have been altered for which the term of imprisonment is at least one year” also constitutes an aggravated felony.
Perez-Paredes admits that he was convicted of a third-degree felony under Utah Code Annotated Â§ 13-10-8. That statute prohibits unlawfully failing to disclose the origin of 100 or more recordings that the defendant hasâ€”for commercial advantage or financial gainâ€”sold, rented, or lent, offered to sell, offered to rent, or possessed for any of those purposes when the defendant knows the recordings do not properly contain the true name and address of the manufacturer. Perez-Paredes does not dispute that the permissible term of imprisonment for that crime exceeded one year. He does, however, argue that a conviction under Â§ 13-10-8 is neither a theft offense nor an offense relating to counterfeiting.
The terms “theft offense” and “relating to counterfeiting” are not defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act. But the BIA examined the Utah statute of conviction and reasonably concluded it fit within the Act’s prohibited categories.
Section 13-10-8 is a part of Utah’s Unauthorized Recording Practices Act, which is intended to “prevent the piracy of recorded materials.” It is not unreasonable to deem piracy closely related to both counterfeiting and theft.Â See, e.g.,Â World Copyright Law 2.29 (3d ed. 2007) (identifying piracy as a form of theft); Elizabeth Friedler,Â Protecting the Innocentâ€”the Need to Adapt Federal Asset Forfeiture Laws to Protect theÂ Interests of Third Parties in Digital Asset Seizures,Â 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 283, 311 (2013) (“[T]here is no question that law enforcement agencies treat piracy as theft”); D.O.J. News Release 06-657 (Sept. 28, 2006) (“Whether it is referred to as counterfeiting, or piracy, or willful infringement of trademarks and copyrights, it all comes under the less elegant heading of stealingâ€”pure and simpleâ€”and we must continue our efforts to stop it” (quoting U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab)).
Order and Judgment, Perez-ParedesÂ v. Holder,Â No. 13-9593Â (10thÂ Cir. May 28, 2014).