Godoy-Aguilar challenged the BIA’s decision, arguing that the California statute under which he was convicted was too broad to qualify as a match for the federal obstruction of justice offense. However, Judge Bea, writing for the three-judge panel, disagreed. He explained that in determining whether a state statute matches a federal offense, courts focus on whether the elements of the state offense align with the generic definition of the federal crime. In this case, Judge Bea concluded that none of the elements of the California offense “swept more broadly” than the federal offense.
Judge Bea emphasized that influencing or impeding a witness or potential witness — which is covered under federal obstruction of justice laws — includes preventing or dissuading a witness from testifying at a legal proceeding. He also noted that the mens rea requirement of “knowingly and maliciously” matched the specific intent required for a federal obstruction offense.
As a result, the Ninth Circuit denied Godoy-Aguilar’s petition for review, confirming that his conviction qualified as an aggravated felony related to obstruction of justice.
