The Ninth Circuit has determined that a Nevada conviction for assault with a deadly weapon qualifies as a crime of violence under the federal sentencing guidelines because it requires that the defendant placed the victim in fear of bodily harm and thus necessarily entails the use or threatened use of violent physical force against the person of another. "A defendant cannot put a reasonable person in fear of bodily harm without threatening to use ‘force capable of causing physical pain or injury.' When the defendant puts the victim in fear of bodily harm through the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon, the violent nature of the force employed is even more apparent."
The court further determined that a Nevada conviction for robbery is not a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines because it can be accomplished by instilling fear of injury to property alone.
Finally, the court determined that a Nevada conviction for coercion does not meet the definition of a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines because the force required is not the violent force required for a crime of violence. In addition, the Nevada Supreme Court has upheld convictions for felony coercion that involved the use or threatened use of physical force against an object, rather than against a person
Given the similarity in the definition of a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines and in the immigration context, this decision could have persuasive impact in the immigration context. However, it is noteworthy that the definition of a crime of violence in the immigration context includes the use or threatened use of violence against the property of another, and thus, the rationale for why the Nevada robbery conviction does not qualify as a crime of violence under the sentencing guidelines may not carry over into the immigration context.
The full text of US v. Edling can be found here:
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/06/08/16-10457.pdf