A federal appeals court has narrowed relief options for noncitizens with state child neglect convictions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a Mexican citizen’s state misdemeanor conviction for child neglect makes her ineligible to avoid deportation, finding that the state offense qualifies as a federal crime of child abuse.
What changed
The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review filed by Maria Reynoso-Salgado, who entered the United States in 1997, and Reynoso-Salgado had challenged a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals that rejected her application for cancellation of removal. Reynoso-Salgado pleaded guilty in 2012 to misdemeanor child neglect under Wisconsin law.
The Department of Homeland Security placed her in removal proceedings the following year for being present in the country without admission or parole, and an immigration judge later ruled that her guilty plea disqualified her from relief under federal immigration law, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision.
The court affirmed that the phrase “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” functions as a single generic offense requiring a culpable mental state of at least criminal negligence, along with “an act or omission that causes harm or creates a reasonable probability of harm” to a child.
Why it matters
This decision binds all immigration practitioners in the Seventh Circuit (covering Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana). If a client has a state conviction for child neglect—even a misdemeanor—practitioners must now analyze whether it contains the elements the court identified: criminal negligence and an act or omission creating harm or risk of harm. If it does, the conviction qualifies as a removable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), and the client is ineligible for cancellation of removal, one of the primary forms of relief for long-term residents in removal proceedings.
The ruling also signals that federal courts will apply independent statutory interpretation under Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, rather than deferring to agency interpretation when the statute’s meaning is ambiguous.
Way forward
- Audit your cases. If you represent a client in the Seventh Circuit with a state child neglect conviction and cancellation of removal is being considered, re-evaluate the statutory elements of the conviction under this new standard.
- Study the state statute. Obtain the precise statutory language and charging documents for any child neglect conviction. Determine whether the offense as written requires proof of criminal negligence and harm or risk of harm.
- Explore other relief. If cancellation is barred, investigate whether other forms of relief (VAWA, asylum, withholding of removal) remain available and whether they have separate crime bars.
- Consider Padilla issues. If the client’s guilty plea was entered without advice on immigration consequences, consult with a removal-defense specialist about potential ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. You should not rely on it as a substitute for professional legal counsel. Immigration law is complex and frequently changing; always verify the current status of any authority cited here against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation.