HARTZ, Holmes, McWilliams (dissenting without opinion)
The 10th Cir discussed, in the context of a sentencing guidelines case, the concept of "physical force," and held that assault by drugging the person was not "physical" force. [Note that the sentencing guidelines definition does not map clearly onto the definition at 18 USC 16, the sentencing guidelines talk only of elements, and physical force to the person of another; but the "physical force" term does appear in both provisions.]
The 10th Cir followed the lead of other circuits in finding the fugitive disentitlement doctrine applicable in the immigration context, and found that Petitioner's status as a (male) VAWA applicant did not give him the freedom to flout the bag and baggage letter.
Note: B&B letter sent 6 days after final BIA order (!?)
The 10th Circuit expressed disagreement with the 9th and 2nd circuits, Secaida-Rosales v. INS, 331 F.3d 297, 308–09 (2d Cir. 2003); Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999), which held that an adverse credibility determination can be based on omissions or on minor inconsistencies. Found that a common sense approach must reign, whereby minor inconsistencies might lead to adverse findings, as may omissions.
Tenth Circuit 
