Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Lopez v. Garland: Theft CIMT Analysis After Loper Bright Uses Persuasive Agency Reasoning

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 10, 2026

Christian Lopez petitioned for review after the agency found him removable for two crimes involving moral turpitude and denied asylum and withholding. The published decision addresses theft CIMTs, agency persuasiveness after Loper Bright, the single-scheme rule, asylum timeliness, and record-supported withholding findings.

The court interpreted the statute independently

After Loper Bright ended mandatory Chevron deference, the panel treated the BIA’s Matter of Diaz-Lizarraga framework as potentially persuasive rather than controlling. It evaluated the agency’s reasoning under Skidmore and found the framework thorough, consistent with the traditional line between substantial and de minimis takings, and compatible with established theft definitions.

The municipal offense categorically required a qualifying deprivation

The Reno ordinance used the term “deprive” without supplying its own definition. Looking to Nevada law and the Model Penal Code, the panel concluded that the term required permanent withholding or withholding long enough to erode a substantial portion of the property’s value. Under the majority’s categorical analysis, the offense therefore qualified as a CIMT.

The pardon and single-scheme arguments did not defeat removability

The statute’s pardon waiver applies when a full and unconditional pardon has actually been granted; the unavailability of a pardon for a municipal offense did not erase the conviction. The two thefts also did not arise from a single scheme because each act constituted a complete offense rather than one indivisible criminal episode.

Relief still turned on separate deadline and evidentiary rules

The court rejected the asserted exceptions to the one-year asylum deadline and held that substantial evidence supported denial of withholding. The decision therefore separates the removability analysis from the independent elements, deadlines, and burdens governing relief. A partial dissent agreed with the post-Loper-Bright method but disputed the categorical reading of the ordinance.

Key takeaways

• After Loper Bright, evaluate the statutory text independently and explain why an agency interpretation is persuasive or unpersuasive.
• Apply the categorical approach to the minimum conduct actually covered by the conviction statute.
• Analyze pardon waivers and the single-scheme requirement as distinct statutory issues.
• Do not treat a removability ruling as resolving asylum timeliness or the evidence required for withholding.