Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[84WashLRev0523] Ninth Circuit V. Board of Immigration Appeals: Defining “Sexual Abuse of a Minor” After Estrada-Espinoza V. Mukasey

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Washington Law Review
dc.contributor.author Herat, Enoka
dc.date.accessioned 2010-01-13T22:21:31Z
dc.date.available 2010-01-13T22:21:31Z
dc.date.issued 2009-08
dc.identifier.citation 84 Wash. L. Rev. 523 (2009) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/173
dc.description.abstract Abstract: Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), lawful permanent residents are rendered removable if they commit an “aggravated felony” at any time after they are admitted into the United States. Significant interpretive issues arise in determining whether a non-citizen’s state-based criminal conviction meets the INA’s definition of an aggravated felony. One aggravated felony enumerated in the INA is “sexual abuse of a minor.”1 The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has interpreted the phrase using a broad federal definition as a guide. In Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey,2 however, the Ninth Circuit declined to defer to the BIA’s interpretation because the BIA’s decision was not a precedential opinion warranting deference. In reviewing whether a California statutory rape conviction constituted sexual abuse of a minor, the Estrada-Espinoza court applied a different federal definition and concluded there was no violation, and thus, Mr. Estrada-Espinoza was not deportable. The question of how to define “sexual abuse of a minor” will likely come before the Ninth Circuit on substantive grounds once the BIA issues a deference-warranting definition of the provision. This Comment argues that when the Ninth Circuit revisits the issue, it should not defer to the BIA, regardless of the definition it promulgates. Rather, the court should rule that the phrase “sexual abuse of a minor” is unambiguous based on its plain meaning, the Ninth Circuit’s precedent, holdings from sister circuits, and policy considerations. This holding would be consistent with the best interpretation of the statute, and Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council3 and its progeny. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Comment en_US
dc.title [84WashLRev0523] Ninth Circuit V. Board of Immigration Appeals: Defining “Sexual Abuse of a Minor” After Estrada-Espinoza V. Mukasey en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2009 by Washington Law Review Association.
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2009 Washington Law Review Association.

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law

Advanced Search


My Account