⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit considers the immigration consequences of a Florida child-abuse conviction. Immigration authorities treated the petitioner's conviction as a ground for removal, and he is challenging that legal classification. The conviction was under a Florida provision covering child abuse without great bodily harm. One way to violate that law is to commit an intentional act reasonably expected to cause physical or mental injury, even if the injury never occurs. This is not a retrial of the criminal charge. The court is using the categorical approach: comparing what the state offense requires with the federal categories of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment. The petitioner's lawyer will argue that the state offense is too broad because it requires neither actual injury nor a legal duty to care for the child. The government will respond that Congress did not limit this removal ground to parents or guardians, and that an earlier circuit decision supports treating this conviction as covered. Listen for the difference between abuse and neglect, and whether the earlier case's caregiver requirement changes the comparison.

Jose Elpidio Figueroa-Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General (No. 25-11562) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 5, 2026.