Background
Rishi Ramdial, a native and citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, became a lawful permanent resident in 2003. In 2019, a Florida court convicted him of robbery by sudden snatching under Fla. Stat. § 812.131, along with several controlled-substance offenses, and sentenced him to five years in prison.
The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings in 2022. An immigration judge found Ramdial removable based on his controlled-substance convictions and concluded that his robbery-by-sudden-snatching conviction was an aggravated-felony theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), making him ineligible for cancellation of removal. After an initial appeal, a court-ordered remand, and further consideration of Ramdial’s arguments, the Board of Immigration Appeals again dismissed his appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit denied Ramdial’s petition for review, holding that Florida robbery by sudden snatching categorically qualifies as a “theft offense” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because Ramdial received a prison term of at least one year, the conviction was an aggravated felony that barred him from cancellation of removal.
The court concluded that Fla. Stat. § 812.131 is indivisible as to its alternatives covering permanent or temporary deprivation and deprivation of a victim or owner, so the ordinary categorical approach applied. The least culpable conduct covered by the statute still matches generic theft: it requires a nonconsensual taking from someone with a possessory interest superior to the defendant’s, coupled with intent to deprive that person of rights in the property, even if the intended deprivation is temporary. The statute therefore was not broader than generic theft on any of the grounds Ramdial asserted.
Key Takeaways
- Florida robbery by sudden snatching under Fla. Stat. § 812.131 categorically constitutes a theft offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).
- Generic theft does not require intent to deprive the title owner; intent to take property from a person with a superior possessory interest is sufficient.
- Temporary deprivation falls within generic theft when the defendant intends to deprive the victim of rights in the property.
- A statute need not expressly say “without consent” when state law makes nonconsent inherent in the offense.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes in the Eleventh Circuit that a Florida robbery-by-sudden-snatching conviction carrying at least a one-year prison term is an aggravated felony under the INA. Noncitizens with such convictions may therefore be removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal, even when the charged offense permits proof of only a temporary intended deprivation.