Golicov v Lynch

Golicov petitioned for review of the removal order in his immigration case arguing the crime of violence ground for removal was unconstitutionally vague. The panel agreed, granted his petition and remanded for further proceedings. It held that because removal strips noncitizens of rights, vagueness challenges to the removal statute are permitted. It noted that it joined the 6th and 9th circuits in so holding. The panel joined the 6th, 7th and 9th Circuits (and declined to join the 5th Circuit which found no vagueness problem),  in holding the definition of “crime of violence” in the removal statute is unconstitutionally vague under United States Supreme Court precedent as it requires a categorical analysis of a mythical ordinary violation of a statute and comparing the risks of physical force against that abstract mythical ordinary case thus making it impossible for the ordinary person to understand what is being prohibited.