Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions - 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017)

Rule:

In the context of statutory rape offenses focused solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(A) requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.

Facts:

Petitioner Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident of the United States, pleaded no contest in a California court to a statutory rape offense criminalizing “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator.” For purposes of that offense, California defined “minor” as “a person under the age of 18.” Based on this conviction, the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which made removable any alien who was convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), including “sexual abuse of a minor,” §1101(a)(43)(A). An Immigration Judge ordered petitioner removed to Mexico. The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that petitioner's crime constituted sexual abuse of a minor and dismissed his appeal. A divided Court of Appeals denied his petition for review.

Issue:

Did a conviction under a state statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and a 17-year-old qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that absent some special relationship of trust, consensual sexual conduct involving a younger partner who was at least 16 years of age did not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA. According to the Court, in the context of statutory rape offenses focused solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1101(a)(43)(A) required the age of the victim to be less than 16. Because Cal. Penal Code § 261.5(c) did not categorically fall within the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor, a conviction pursuant to it was not an aggravated felony under § 1101(a)(43)(A). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.