A federal appeals court has shut down an Oregon man’s latest effort to stay in the United States, holding that committing domestic violence in front of his children can count as “child abuse” under federal immigration law. The ruling, filed July 23, 2026, comes after years of litigation and could widen the range of state assault convictions that trigger deportation. At the center of the opinion is a key phrase - whether the assault happened “in the immediate presence of” a minor - which the court said is enough to put a child at real risk of bodily or mental harm.
What the court said
According to Justia, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay wrote that Roberto Diaz-Boyzo’s conviction under Oregon Revised Statutes § 163.160(1)(a), (3)(c) - assault “in the immediate presence of” a minor - “matches a ‘crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment’ under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).” The panel used the modified categorical approach and denied his petition for review. The opinion underscores that an assault a child witnesses is not just bad parenting, in the court’s view it creates a real danger of physical or emotional harm to that child.
Case background
As reported by the Tampa Free Press, Diaz-Boyzo pleaded guilty in 2013 to two felony counts of fourth-degree assault after hitting his wife in front of their minor son and daughter. He was sentenced to two years in prison followed by two years of probation. The Department of Homeland Security then charged him as removable under the child-abuse provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and both an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that his conduct qualified. With the Ninth Circuit now rejecting his appeal, federal authorities are cleared to move ahead with the next steps toward removal.
Precedent the court relied on
The panel drew on a June 2026 decision that interpreted 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) to reach child endangerment offenses and to require a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. For that analysis, see the Ninth Circuit. The removal ground itself - detailed at Cornell Law School - makes a noncitizen deportable for a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.” In this latest ruling, the court again read that language to cover conduct that places a child at real risk of harm even if the child is never physically touched.
Why this matters
Immigration attorneys say the decision could shake up plea bargaining and eligibility for relief in a wide swath of cases, since assaults committed where children are present may now be treated as deportable child-abuse convictions. As noted by American Immigration Lawyers Association practitioners, the opinion fits into a broader pattern of courts folding child endangerment into § 1227’s reach and is likely to fuel more fights over whether state statutes are divisible or overbroad. The ruling does not itself put anyone on a plane, but it removes a major legal obstacle for federal enforcement in cases like Diaz-Boyzo’s.
Legal next steps
Diaz-Boyzo can ask the Ninth Circuit for rehearing or take his chances with a petition to the Supreme Court. If those efforts fail, the government can proceed with removal. Noncitizens with similar convictions might still explore narrow forms of discretionary relief or specific statutory waivers, for instance where a person was a victim of abuse and not the primary aggressor, though those avenues are tightly limited and heavily fact-dependent. For now, the ruling gives immigration officials a clearer legal hook to pursue deportation when children are present for domestic violence.
