A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e21,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT M A U RI CI O V A RG A S,

P eti ti o n er, v. N o. 05- 9581 DE P AR T M E NT OF HOMEL AND S E C U R IT Y ; M A R IO O R T IZ , In ter im D i s tr i ctD i r ect or , i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c i tyo n l y ; EXE CUTI VE OF F I CE O F I MMI G R A T I O N R E V I E W; A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S, A t t or ney G e n e ra l, R espon den t s.

P E T I T I ON F OR RE VI E W OF AN OR DE R O F THE BOA RD O F I M M I GR ATI ON APP EALS *

( B . I . A . N O . A 76- 263- 576) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: P atri ck C . H y d e, D en v er, C o lorad o , fo r P eti ti o n er. Je n n ife r L . L ig h tb o d y , A tto rn e y , (S tep h e n J. F lyn n , S e n io r L iti g a tio n C o u n se l, w i th h e ron the br i e f) , O ff i c e of I mm i gr a t i on Li t i ga t i on , Ci vi l D i vi s i on , U . S. D e p a rtm e n t o f

Ju stic e , W a sh in g to n , D .C ., fo r R e sp o n d e n t.- 2-

B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. U nder8 U . S. C . § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , “[a ] nyal i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n ag g rav ated fe lon yat an yti m e a fter ad m issi o n is de p o rt ab le. ” T h e term aggr avat ed f

el ony encompas s es , among ot hert hi ngs , “s exual abus e of a m i nor . ” 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) . M aur i ci o V ar gas w as or der ed r emoved fr om t he countryfol l ow i ng a s t at e convi ct i on i n C ol or ado forcontr i but i ng t o the d e lin q u e n c yo f

a m in o r. H e c h a llen g e s th e v a lid ityo f h is g u iltyp lea in sta te c o u rt, b u t w e h o ld th a t w e h a v e n o a u th o rityto a d d re ss th a t cla im in th is pr ocee di ng. H e al s o cont ends thatt he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) err ed in c o n c lu d in g th a t h is o ffe n se w a s a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to r es ol ve thi s l egal di s put e under 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ). B e c a u se th e sta te char ge aga i ns tM r . V ar gas w as forcontr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a mi norby i nduci ng the mi nort o engage i n unl aw ful s exual cont act , w e hol d thathe w as fo u n d g u ilty o f

a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . I . BA CKGROUND M r . V ar gas s eeks r evi ew of a f i nal or derof r emoval i s s ued byt he B I A on Sept ember6, 2005. H e i s a nat i ve and c i t i zen of M exi co. H e bec ame a l aw ful perm anentr es i dentof thi s countryon A pr i l 26, 1999. I n O ct ober2000 he w as- 3-

c h a rg e d in C o lo ra d o s ta te c o u rt w ith th re e c o u n ts o f s e x u a l a s s a u lt o n a c h ild . T h e S t a t e l a t e ra d d e d a fo u r th c o u n tt h a ta l l e g e d t h a th e “ d i d u n l a w f u l l y, k n o w in g lya n d fe lo n io u slyin d u c e , aid a n d e n c o u ra g e a c h ild to v io late a sta te law , to- w it: U N L A W F U L S E X U A L C O N T A C T ; C .R .S . 1 8 -3 -4 0 4 (1 )(a ); in v i o l a t i o n o f

S e c t i o n 1 8 - 6 - 7 0 1 , C. R. S . ; CO NT RI BU T I NG T O T HE D E L I N Q U E N C Y O F A M I N O R . ” R . at76. U ndera pl ea a gr eementhe pl eade d g u ilty to c o u n t fo u r a n d th e fir s t th re e c o u n ts w e re d is m is s e d . I n M ar ch 2005 M r . V ar gas r ece i ved a not i ce t o appea rbefor e an im m igrati o n jud g e (IJ) t o sh o w w h yh e sh o u ld n o t be re m o v ed fro m the c o u n try u n d e rth e I mmi g r a t i o n a n d Na tu r a l i z a t i o n Ac t( I NA) § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i i ) , 8 U. S . C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , beca us e of thi s convi ct i on. A ta r emoval hear i ng on A pr i l 6, 2005, he admi t t ed the fa ctual al l egat i ons i n the not i ce t o appea rbutcont ended th a t h e w a s n o t re m o v a b le b e c a u se h e h a d p lea d e d g u iltyo n lyto c o n trib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f

a m in o r, w h ic h , h e c o n te n d e d , is n o t a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . T he I J di s agr eed, s t at i ng that“the cr i m e of c ontr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a m i nori s an aggr avat ed fe l onyw her e the r es pondentw as found gui l tyof k n o wi n g l yi n d u c i n g o ra i d i n g a c h i l d t o c o mm i ts e x u a l c o n t a c t . ” R. a t4 5 . On A p ri l 1 2 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. V a rg a s w a s o rd e re d re m o v e d to M e x ic o . M r . V ar gas appea l ed the I J ’ s rul i ng t o the B I A , w hi ch affi r m ed, s t at i ng: T he C ol or ado offens e of c ontr i but i ng t o the del i nquencyof a mi nor do es not quali fycat ego ri cal l yas “sexual abuse of a m i no r” because ther e ar e manyw ay s of comm i t t i ng thatoffe ns e, onl ys om e of w hi ch- 4-

in v o lv e se x u a l ab u se . In su c h c a se s, w e a re a u th o riz e d to c o n su lt a l i m i t ed n um ber of judi ci al l y -not i ceable docu m ents , such as a char gi ng documentorpl ea a gr eement , t o det erm i ne w hetheran al i en’s conv i ct i on un der a faci al l yov erbr oad st atute w as neve rtheles s a c o n v ic tio n fo r a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . C f . Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 12 5 S . C t . 12 54 , 12 60 (2005 ). T he ch argi ng do cum ent i n thi s case

. . . m akes i tqui t e cl earthatthe r es pondent ’ s contr i but i ng- t o- thedel i nquency - of- a- m i noroffe ns e conform s t o the gene r i c conc eptof “ s e x u a l a b u s e o f

a m in o r” s e t fo rt h a t s e c tio n 1 0 1 (a )( 4 3 )( A ). Id . at 3. M r. V arg as se ek s rev iew o f th e B IA ’s ruli n g . W e c o n clud e tha t th e B IA pr oper l ydet erm i ned thatM r . V ar gas comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fe l onyand th e re fo re a ffir m th e re m o v a l o rd e r. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. V a rg a s c h a llen g e s b o th h is s tate -c o u rt c o n v ictio n a n d its charact eri zat i on as an ag gravat ed-fel on ycon vict i on . H e rai ses tw o d ue-process cl ai m s w i th r es pectt o hi s convi ct i on. Fi r s t , he as s er t s t hathi s att or neydur i ng t he s t at e cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs t ol d hi m t hatpl eadi ng gui l tyt o contr i but i ng t o the d e lin q u e n c yo f

a m in o r w o u ld n o t su bjec t h im to d e p o rta tio n . B e c a u se o f th is m i s l eadi ng s t at ement , he cont ends , he “ha s t he r i ghtt o w i thdr aw hi s gui l typl ea. ” A p lt. B r. at 1 3 . S e c o n d , h e c o n ten d s th a t itw a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l fo r th e sta te c o u rt to a c c e p t h is g u ilty p le a b e c a u s e h e c o n tin u a lly m a in ta in e d h is in n o c e n c e . W h ethe r th ese co n tention s h av e m erito r no t, w e c an n o t add ress the m . T h eyare bey ond the s cope of

thes e pr ocee di ngs . A “pet i t i onercannotcol l at er al l yatt ack th e le g itim a c yo f

h is s ta te c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n s in th e d e p o rt a tio n p ro c e e d in g s . T hus , i ti s i r r el evantforourpurpos es t hatan att orneym i ghts ucce s s ful l yhave- 5-

appl i ed fort he w i thdr aw al of the gui l typl ea[ ] . . . . ” Tr e n c h v . I NS , 783 F. 2d 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). W e c a n , h o w e v e r, re v iew h is c o n ten tio n th a t th e o ffe n se o f c o n trib u tin g to the del i nquencyof a mi nori s notan aggr avat ed fe l ony . Fors ever al y ear s our re v ie w o f

re m o v a l o rd e rs b a s e d o n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n ie s w a s e x tr e m e ly lim ite d . Th e I l l e g a l I mmi g r a t i o n Re fo r m a n d I mmi g r a n tRe s p o n s i b i l i tyAct , Pu b . L. N o . 1 0 4 -20 8 , 1 1 0 S tat . 3 0 0 9 , en ac ted in 1 9 9 6 , ad d ed 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ), s t at i ng: N o tw ith sta n d in g a n yo th e r p ro v isio n o f law . . . , n o c o u rt sh a ll have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anyfi nal or derof r emoval agai ns tan al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed a c r i m i nal o ffen se c o v ere d in se cti o n 1 1 8 1 (a)(2) o r 1 2 2 7 (a)(2 )(A)(iii), (B ), (C ), or( D ) of thi s t i t l e, oranyoffe ns e cove r ed bys ect i on 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i ) of thi s t i t l e forw hi ch both pr edi ct at e offens es ar e, w i thoutr egar d t o thei rdat e of c om m i s s i on, otherw i s e cove r ed by s e c tio n 1 2 2 7 (a )( 2 )( A )( i) o f th is title . ( emphasi s added) . I n 2001 w e hel d thatthi s pr ovi s i on l eftus w i th j ur i s di ct i on onl yt o det erm i ne ourj ur i s di ct i on; thati s , once w e det erm i ned thatthe pet i t i oner w as ( i ) an al i en ( i i ) deport abl e ( i i i ) byr eas on of havi ng comm i t t ed an a ggr avat ed fel ony , ourj ur i s di ct i on w as atan end a nd w e w oul d di s m i s s the pet i t i on for re v ie w . S e e Ta

p i a Ga r c i a v . I

NS , 237 F. 3d 1216, 1220 ( 10th C i r . 2001) . B utthe R E A L I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231, part i al l yr es t or ed our j ur i s di ct i on. N ow , new s ubpar agr aph ( D ) of § 1252 ( a) ( 2) overr i des s ubpar agr aph ( C ) s o thatw e ca n r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of- 6-

l aw ” r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew of a r emoval or der , even i n an aggr avat edfe lo n yc a se . 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ); s ee P apageorgi ou v. G onz al es , 413 F. 3d 35 6, 35 8 (3rd C i r. 20 05 ) ( “T his no w perm i t s al l al i ens, i ncludi ng cri m i nal al i ens, t o obt ai n r evi ew of cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw upon the fi l i ng of a pet i t i on forr evi ew . . . . ”) . B eca us e M r . V ar gas ’ s chal l enge t o the char act er i zat i on of hi s convi ct i on r ai s es s uch a que s t i on of l aw , w e have ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w it. See A l iv. U. S. A t t ’ y G en. , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 9 (11 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r ev iew ing u n d er su b p ara g rap h (D ) a c lai m that g u il typ lea in state c o u rt d id n o t c o n s titu te a “ c o n v ic tio n ” fo r p u rp o s e s o f th e IN A ). T he def i ni t i on of aggr avat ed f el ony i n 8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) i ncl udes “se x u al ab u se o f a m ino r. ” A lth o u g h M r. V arg as c h all en g es th e B IA ’s cl as s i fi cat i on of hi s convi ct i on as s exual abus e of a m i nor , he does notchal l enge the B I A ’ s defi ni t i on of s exualabus e of a m i nor , w hi ch i s borr ow ed fr om 18 U . S . C . § 3 50 9. T hat s t atute defi nes sexual abu se to in c lu d e “ th e e m p lo ym e n t, us e, per s uas i on, i nducement , ent i cement , orcoer ci on of a c hi l d t o engage i n, or as s i s tanotherper s on t o engage i n, s exual l yexpl i ci tconductort he r ape, m ol es t at i on, pr os t i tut i on, orot herform of s exual expl oi t at i on of chi l dr en, or in c e st w ith c h ild re n .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 0 9 (a )(8 ); see Matter of R odrigu ezR odr iguez , 22 I . & N . D ec. 991, 995- 96 ( B I A 1999) ( adopt i ng s t atut or ydefi ni t i on “as a gui de”) . I ns t ead, he cha l l enges w hethert he B I A coul d pr oper l ydet erm i ne thathi s offe ns e i nvol ved the s exual abus e of a m i norbyl ooki ng t o the al l egat i ons- 7-

i n the cha r gi ng documentr atherthan conf i ni ng i t s el f t o the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of c o n tr ib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r. M r . V ar gas cont ends thatt o det erm i ne w hethera pr i orconvi ct i on qual i fi es a s a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y , w e m u st fo llo w th e “ c a teg o ric a l ap p ro a c h ” se t fo rth in Tayl orv. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 , 6 0 0 (1 9 9 0 ). See, e. g. , S in g h v . A sh c ro ft , 383 F. 3d 144 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( appl y i ng Tayl ort o det erm i ne w hetherconvi ct i on for “[u] nl aw ful s exual cont acti n the thi r d degr ee” underD el aw ar e l aw cons t i tut ed s exual abus e of a m i nor ) . I n Tayl orthe issu e w as w h ethe r a state-co u rt convi ct i on w as forthe pr edi cat e offens e of “ bur gl ary ” underthe A r m ed C ar eer C r i m i nal A ct( A C C A ) , 18 U . S. C . § 924( e) , w hi ch i m pos es i ncr eas ed s ent ence s for thos e w i th pr i orconvi ct i ons of ce r t ai n fel oni es . T he Supr eme C our ti nt erpr et ed burglar y i n the A C C A t o r efe rt o “gene r i c bur gl ary , ” meani ng an “unl aw ful or u n p riv ileg e d e n tryin to , o r re m a in in g in , a b u ild in g o r stru c tu re , w ith in ten t to c o m m it a c ri m e .” 4 9 5 U .S . a t 5 9 9 . Tayl ors ai d thatt o det erm i ne w hetherpr i or co n v ict ion s w ere fo r g en eric b u rglary , co u rt s co u ld “lo o k [] o n lyto the statu tory defini t i on s of t he p ri or offen ses, and no tt o the part i cularfact s und erl y i ng t ho se convi ct i ons . ” Id . at600. I n otherw or ds , onl yi f the s t at e s t atut e r equi r ed al l t he el ement s of gene r i c bur gl arycoul d the defendant ’ s s ent ence be enha nced unde r th e A C C A . Tayl ora c k n o w led g e d , h o w e v e r, th a t [t ] hi s cat egor i cal appr oach . . . m ayperm i tt he s ent enci ng courtt o go b ey o n d the m ere fa ct of co n v ict ion in a n arro w ran g e o f c ase s w h ere a ju ryw a s a c tu a llyre q u ire d to fin d a ll th e e lem e n ts o f g e n e ric- 8-

bur gl ary . Forexampl e, i n a St at e w hos e bur gl arys t atut es i ncl ude entr yof an a ut om obi l e as w el l as a bui l di ng, i f the i ndi ctm entor i nform at i on and j uryi ns truct i ons s how thatthe defendantw as ch arg ed o n lyw ith a b u rglaryo f a b u il d ing , an d that the ju ry nece s s ar i l yhad t o fi nd an entryof a bui l di ng t o convi ct , then the G overnm ents houl d be al l ow ed t o us e the convi ct i on for e n h a n c e m e n t. Id . at602. I n Shepar d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 544 U . S. 13 ( 2005) , the C our tappl i ed thi s cat egor i cal appr oach t o pr i orconvi ct i ons r es ul t i ng fr om gui l typl eas r ather than juryv erd ict s. Itag ain re co g n ized that w h en the p ri o r co n v ict ion w as u n d er a nongener i c s t atut e, court s coul d l ook t o “the t erm s of the cha r gi ng document , t he t erm s of a pl ea a gr eementort r ans cr i ptof col l oquybetw een j udge and de fenda nt i n wh i c h th e fa c tu a l b a s i s fo rt h e p l e a wa s c o n fi r me d b yth e d e fe n d a n t , o rt o s o me compar abl e j udi ci al r ecor d of thi s i nform at i on. ” Id . at26. W e now appl ythe appr oach of Tayl or/ Sh epa rdt o th i s c a s e . ( Be c a u s e we denyr el i ef t o M r . V ar gas underthi s appr oach, w e nee d notdeci de w hetherthe cons tr ai nt s of Taylor and Sh epa rdnece s s ar i l yappl yi n r es ol vi ng w hetheran offe ns e i s an aggr avat ed fe l onyunder8 U . S. C . § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) . ) C ol or ado R evi s ed St atut es § 18- 6- 701 s t at es , “A nyper s on w ho i nduces , ai ds , orencour ages a c h il d to v iolate an yfe d era l or stat e law , m u n ici p al or c o u n tyo rdin an ce , o r co u rt o rd e r c o m m its c o n trib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r.” T h is s tatu te e n c o m p a ss e s a m u lti tu d e o f c rim e s, o n e fo r e a c h p re d ica te o ffe n se th a t th e c h ild m ig h t b e u rg e d to c o m m it. T h a t o ffe n se c o u ld b e a n yth in g f ro m jayw a lk in g to m ur der . B utt he s peci fi c pr edi cat e offens e mustbe cha r ged and pr oved as an- 9-

e le m e n t o f

th e o ffe n s e o f

c o n tr ib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r. S e e P e op le v. C or peni ng , 837 P. 2d 249, 252 ( C ol o. A pp. 1992) (j ur yi ns truct i on on c o n trib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r w a s e rro n e o u s “ b e c a u se it fa iled to sta te p re c ise lyw h ich law w a s v io late d b yth e m in o r” ). T h a t is, to c o n v ict a d e fe n d a n t o f

c o n trib u tin g to th e d e lin q u e n c yo f a m in o r, th e ju ry“ n e c e ss a rily ha[s ] t o fi nd, ” Tayl or , 495 U . S. at602, a s peci fi ed pr edi cat e offens e thatthe d e fe n d a n t in d u c e d , a id e d , o r e n c o u ra g e d th e c h ild to v io la te . H en ce , § 1 8 -6-7 0 1 is l ike a statu te th at crim inalizes b o th g en eric b u rglary and otheroffe ns es . T o det erm i ne w hethera part i cul arconvi ct i on underthe contr i but i ng- t o- the- del i nquency - of- a- m i nors t atut e w as fors exual abus e of a m in o r, Tayl orand Shepar d perm i tr evi ew of m or e than the def i ni t i on of the s t atut oryoffe ns e. “W hen the under l y i ng s t atut e r eac hes a br oad r ange of conduct , ” s om e of w hi ch w oul d cons t i tut e an a ggr avat ed fe l onyand s om e of w hi ch w oul d not , “court s r es ol ve the ambi gui tybycons ul t i ng r el i abl e j udi ci al r ecor ds , s uch as t he cha r gi ng document , pl ea a gr eement , orpl ea c ol l oquy . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez - Her nandez , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 8 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A c c o rd in g ly , itw a s a p p ro p ria te fo r th e B IA to lo o k a t th e c h a rg in g d o c u m e n t to see w h at l aw the d efen d an t i n d u ce d , aide d , o r en co u rag ed the m ino r t o b rea k . In this case the c h arg ing d o cu m en t r efere n ce d C o lo. R ev . S tat . § 1 8 -3-4 0 4 (1)(a), tit led “ U n law f

u l S e x u a l C o n tac t,” w h ich sta tes th a t “[ a ]n ya c to r w h o k n o w in g ly s u bje c ts a v ic tim to a n ys e x u a l c o n ta c t c o m m its u n la w f u l s e x u a l c o n ta c t if

. . .- 10-

[t ] he ac t orknow s t hatt he vi ct i m does notcons ent [. ] ” Thus, M r . V ar gas w as char ged w i th and convi ct ed of e ncour agi ng a chi l d t o engage i n noncons ens ual s e x u a l c o n ta c t. T h is is u n q u e s tio n a b ly se x u a l a b u s e o f a m in o r. See 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 0 9 (a )( 8 ). W e h o ld th a t M r. V a rg a s w a s c o n v ic te d o f a n a g g ra v a te d fe lo n y . I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A F F IR M th e o rd e r o f th e B IA .