H onor abl e C hr i s t opher C

. C o n n er, U n it ed S tat es D i s tr i ct * J udge f o r th e M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 4741

M AR I O R E S T RE P O, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES,

R es pondent

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 041- 383- 831) A r gued J anuary26, 2010 B efore: F U E N T E S and F ISH E R , C i rcui tJudg es, and C O N N E R , D i s t r i ctJ udge. *2 ( Fi l ed: A ugus t16, 2010) T h o ma s E
. M o s e l e y , E s q . [ AR GUE D] O n e G atew ayC en ter Sui t e 2600 N ew ark, N J 07102 C ouns el forPet i t i oner L i z a S

. M u r c i a , E s q . [ AR GUE D] A r i N aza r ov, E s q. J enni ferP. W i l l i ams, E s q. U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on, C i vi l D i vi s i on P. O

. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

C O N N E R , D i s t r i ctJ udge. Pet i t i onerM ar i o R es t r epo ( “R est repo” ) , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f Col o mbi a a n d a l a wfu l p e r ma n e n t r e s i d e n t o f t he U ni t ed S tat es, fi l ed the i ns t antpet i t i on t o pr eventhi s r emoval fr om t hi s countr ybas ed on the det erm i nat i o n o f the B oar d of3 I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) thathe comm i t t e da n “ aggr avat ed f e l o n y ” p u r s u a n tt o 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( i i i ) a n d 8 U. S

. C. § 1 1 0 1 (a) ( 43) ( A )

. I n 1994, R es t r epo w as convi ct ed of “aggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont act ” underN
. J. S t at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3( a)

. R es t r epo ar gues thatthi s convi ct i on does not qual i fyas an aggr avat ed fe l onyunderthe I m m i gr at i on and Na t i o n a l i t yAc t( “ I NA” )

. We d i s a g r e e a n d , a s a r e s u l t , we concl ude thatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o rev iew the B I A ’ s fi nal order of rem ov al

. S ee 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 25 2(a) (2) (C ). R estrepo al so co n tend s that the rem o v al p roc ee d ing s b rou g h t ag ains t him are tim e -b a rre d , fo r th e y d id n o t c o m m e n c e u n til a d e c a d e a f ter h is convi ct i on w as i m pos ed. W e r ej ectt hi s ar gum entas w el l and w e w i l l di s m i s s R es t r epo’ s pet i t i on. I. O n M ar ch 22, 1 9 9 4 , R es t r epo’ s daught er , L i na, w as i nt ervi ew ed byt he pol i ce. She di s cl os ed thaton s ever al occa s i ons herfatherhad t ouched he rbr eas tand vagi na thr ough her cl ot hi ng w i t h hi s hands

. Pol i ce que s t i oned R es t r epo about th e se a c c u sa tio n s a n d h e a d m itt e d th a t h e f irst to u c h e d h is dau gh t er i nap propriatel yi n 1 99 0, and he h ad d on e so i nt erm itt ent l yfort he nextfoury ear s . R es t r epo w as char ged w i t h t hi r d degr ee a ggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont acti n vi ol at i on of N

. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3( a)

. U nderthi s s t atut orypr ovi s i on, “[a ] n act ori s gui l t yof aggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont acti f he comm i t s an ac tof s exual cont ac t w i t h the vi ct i m underanyof t he cir cum st ances set forth i n 2C : 14 -2( a)( 2) thr ou gh (7)

. ” N

. J. S tat. A n n . § 2 C :1 4 -3 (a ). R e str e p o p le d g u iltyto a sta te i ndi ctm entw hi ch cha r ged that he comm i t t ed aggr avat ed s exual con t actw i th a v i ct i m of at l eastthirt een y ears of ag e, bu tl ess t han s i xt een y ear s of age , a vi ol at i on of 2C : 14- 2( a) ( 2)

. H e w as4 s ent ence d t o 364 day s i n pr i s on and fi ve y ear s ’ pr obat i on. R e stre p o h a s n o c rim in a l h isto ryw h ich p o s t-d a tes th is convi ct i on. I n 2004, t en y ear s aft er hi s gui l t ypl ea, t he U ni t ed St at es D epart m en tof I m m i gr at i on and C us t om E nfor cement ( “U SI C E ”) s erved R es t r epo w i t h a not i ce t o appea rand cha r ged hi m as r emovabl e pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C

. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) for comm i s s i on of an a ggr avat ed fe l ony , t o w i t : s exual abus e of a m in o r. R e stre p o a d m itt e d th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s c o n tain e d in t he not i ce t o appea rand conc eded r emovabi l i t yas char ged, but he appl i ed for a w ai verof r emovabi l i t y . A hear i ng on R es t r epo’ s w ai verr eques tw as hel d on D ece m ber 23, 2004, aft er w hi ch the i m m i gr at i on jud g e found t hatR es t r epo w as r e mov a b l e a n d d e n i e d h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o rwai v e r . Re s t r epo appea l ed thi s deci s i on, and the B I A affir m ed o n February17, 2006. R estrep o fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew , and he a l s o fi l ed a m ot i on t o r eopen pr ocee di ngs w i t h the B I A , r eques t i ng t hatt he B I A adj u st h is st atus t o thatof a l aw ful r es i dentpur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C

. § 1255. T he B I A deni ed R es t r epo’ s m ot i on t o r eopen on Ju ly2 0 , 2 0 0 6 . T h e re a f

ter , R e stre p o f

iled a se c o n d p e tit io n w ith t h i s Co u r t , s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f t h e BI A’ s J u l y2 0 o r d e r . On A ugus t11, 2006, t he C our tcons ol i dat ed the pet i t i ons . T he governm entt hen fil ed an unoppose d m ot i on forr emand t o t he B I A on O ct ober 12, 2006. T hi s m ot i on w as gr ant ed on A pr i l 11, 2007, and the B I A r eaf fi r m ed the dec i s i on of the i m m i gr at i on j udge on N ovember 30, 2007. R es t r epo now pr es ent s t he i ns t ant p e titio n . II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval5 p u rsua n t t o 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a). C o n g ress h as stri p p ed the C o u rt of j ur i s di ct i on, how ever , t o r evi ew an or dert o r emove an al i en w h o c o m m i t s a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y . S e e § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C )

. We nonethel es s r et ai n j ur i s di ct i on t o addr es s thi s j ur i s di ct i onal pr er equi s i t e— or , m or e pr eci s el y , “w hetheran a li en w as convi ct ed of a non- r evi ew ab le aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” Stubbs v. A t t ’ yG en. , 452 F. 3d 251, 253 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. T he ques t i on of w hether an al i en’ s offe ns e cons t i tut es an aggr ava ted f el ony i s r evi ew ed de novo a s i ti m pl i cat es a pur el yl egal ques t i on t hat governs t he appel l at e cour t ’ s j ur i s di ct i on. See V al ans i v. As h c r o f t , 2 7 8 F
. 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )

. I n a d d i t i o n , we pos s es s j ur i s di ct i on t o hear“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons o f la w p re s e n te d in p e titio n s f o r re v ie w o f f

in a l r e m o v a l o rd e rs ,” e v e n f o rt h o s e a l i e n s c o n v i c t e d o f a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y. P ap ag eo rgio u v . G o n za les, 4 1 3 F
. 3 d 3 5 6 , 3 5 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). O urr evi ew of s uch cl ai m s i s de novo. See D e Leon- R eynos o v. A sh c ro f t, 2 9 3 F .3 d 6 3 3 , 6 3 5 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). R e stre p o ’s s tatu teS o me wh a ts u rp r i s i n g l y , Re s t r e p o a l s o r e q u e s t s t h a twe 1 re m a n d h is c a se to th e B IA f o r dis p o sitio n o f h is ap p lica tio n to adj us thi s stat u s t o t hatof a l aw ful r es i dent

. W e not e thatt he B I A pr evi ous l yaddr es s ed thi s i s s ue. I tconcl uded thatR es t r epo fai l ed t o s how t hat he w as el i gi bl e fora s t atus adj us t m entw hen i tdeni ed hi s m ot i o n t o r eopen. M or eover , t he B I A found R es t r epo i nadmi s s i bl e under8 U

. S. C

. § 1182( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I ) for engagi ng i n “ac t s w hi ch cons t i tut e th e essent i al el ement s of a cr i m e i nvol vi ng m or al turpi tude” a nd i t not ed t hat i thad al r eady hel d t hatR es t r epo coul d notobta i n a § 212 w ai verof rem o v ab ility. R estrep o co n tend s tha t th ese h o lding s w ere err on eou s. W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of Re s t r e p o ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n . Und e r8 U. S. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) , “ no cour ts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew

— ( i ) anyj ud g m ent r e g a r d i n g t h e g r a n t i n g o f r e l i e f u n d e rs e c t i o n . . . 2 4 5 [ 8 U. S

. C. § 1255, deal i ng w i t h adj us t m entof s t atus ] , or (i i ) anyother deci s i on oract i on of the A t t orney G ener al

. . . t he author i t yfor w hi ch i s s p ec ifi ed .

. . t o be i n the di s cr et i on of the A t t orney G en era l[. ]” 6 of l i m i t at i ons cl ai m fal l s i nt o t hi s l at t ercat egory . Fi nal l y , i n the 1 pr ocee di ngs bel ow , t he B I A adopt ed and aff i r m ed the dec i s i on o f th e im m ig ra ti o n ju d g e a n d p ro v id e d a d d iti o n a l re a so n in g in s uppor tof i t s deci s i on. T hus , w e w i l l r evi ew bot h t he dec i s i on of the i m m i gr at i on j udge and t he dec i s i on of the B I A

. See C hen v . A s h c ro f

t, 3 7 6 F .3 d 2 1 5 , 2 2 2 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

III
. T hi s pet i t i on pr es ent s t w o pr i nci pal i s s ues forour7 cons i der at i on: ( 1) w hether R es t r epo i s r emovabl e forconvi ct i on o f a n ag g rav ated fe lon y
— sp ec ifi ca ll y , sex u al ab u se o f a m ino r, and ( 2) w hethert he r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tR es t r epo ar e t i m e- barr ed. T he C our tw i l l addr es s thes e i s s ues i n turn. A

. W as R es tr epo C onvi ct ed of an A ggr avat ed Fel ony? T he I N A pr ovi des that“[a ] nyal i en w ho i s convi ct ed of a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n ya t a n ytim e a f

te r a d m is s io n is d e p o rt a b le .” 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i i )

. T h e t e r m “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y” appl i es notonl yt o fede r al offe ns es , butal s o t o vi ol at i ons of s t at e l aw . See 8 U

. S. C

. § 1101( a) ( 43) ; C ar achur i

- R os endo v. H ol der ,

_ _ _ U
. S. ___, 177 L

. E d. 2d 68, 78 n. 1 ( Sup. C t
. J une 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ). T h e IN A d e f in e s a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y to in c lu d e , i nt er a lia , “ mu r d e r , r a p e , o rs e x u a l a b u s e of a mi n o r . ” 8 U. S

. C. § 110 1 (a)(43) ( A )

. T he ques t i on s ub j udi ce is w h ethe r a convi ct i on for ag gr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont act , i n vi ol at i on of N

. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3( a) , cons t i tut es t he aggr avat ed f e l o n yo f s e x u a l a b u s e o f

a mi n o ru n d e rth e I NA. T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed th at s ever al of the offe ns es l i s t ed i n t he I N A

— i ncl u d ing s exual abus e of a m i no r

— d o n o tr e f

e rt o “ s p e c i f

i c a c t s i n whi c h a n o f f e nder engage d on a spec i fi c occas i on, ” or“the s peci fi c w ayi n w hi ch an off endercomm i t t ed the cr i m e, ” butr ather , they “m u s tr efe r t o g e ne r i c c r i mes . ” N i

j ha w a n v . H ol de r , U
. S. , 12 9 S. C t
. 2294, 2298, 2300 ( 2009)

. A ccor di ng ly , w e em pl oyt he “ca t egor i cal appr oach” of Tay l orv. U ni t ed S t at es , 495 U

. S. 575 ( 1990 ), t o det erm i ne w hetheran al i en’ s convi ct i on cons t i tut es se x u a l ab u se o f

a m in o r u n d e r th e IN A

. N ijh a w a n , U .S . at

, 1 2 9 S

. Ct

. a t2 3 0 0

. T h e c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h r e q u i r e s a two s t ep ana l y s i s : fi r s t , w e mustas cert ai n the def i ni t i on fors exual8 a b u se o f a m in o r, a n d se c o n d , w e m u st co m p a r e th is “ f e d e ra l” defi ni t i on t o t he s t at e s t atut ory offe ns e i n ques t i on— i n thi s cas e, aggr avat ed cr i m inal s exual cont actunderN
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2 C :14 -3(a ). S ee S ing h v . A sh cro ft, 3 8 3 F
. 3 d 1 4 4 , 1 5 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 4 ). O rd in a rily , th e c a teg o ric a l a p p ro a c h “ p ro h ib its cons i der at i on of evi dence ot herthan the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of th e o f f e n se , thu s p re c lu d in g re v iew o f th e p a rticu lar f

a c ts under l y i ng a convi ct i on. ” See Stubb s, 4 5 2 F. 3d at253- 54 ( ci t i ng Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at 147- 48)

. H ow ever , w her e, as her e, “a s t atut e cr i m i nal i zes di ffe r entki nds of conduc t , s om e of w h i ch w o u ld c o n stitu te [ a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ies ] w h ile o th e rs w o u ld n o t, t he courtm us tappl ya m odi fi ed cat egor i cal appr oach byw hi ch a courtm ayl ook bey ond t he st atut ory el ement s t o det erm i ne the par t i cul arpar tof the s t at u te u n derw hi ch the def endantw as actual l y convi ct ed. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. St i ns on, 592 F. 3d 460, 462 ( 3d C i r. 2 0 1 0 ). I f conduc tt hatm eet s t he fe der al defi ni t i on of sexual abuse of

a m i no r i s nece s s ar

y for a con vict i on un der N

. J. S t at
. A nn . § 2C : 14 -3( a), t hen R estrepo’s con vict i on un der N

. J. St at
. A n n . § 2C : 14- 3( a) qual i fi es as a convi ct i on fors exual abus e of a m i no r and, byext ens i on, an aggr avat ed fe l onyfor w hich he i s r em ov able. S ee S i ng h, 38 3 F
. 3d at 15 3 (“O f cou rs e i ti s ir rel evantt hats exual l yabus i ng a mi norm aybe s uf f i ci ent forconvi ct i on undert he s t atut e; w hatm att er s i s w hethers uch con du cti s nece s s ar

y f o r su c h a c o n v ictio n .” (e m p h a sis in or i gi nal ) )

. I f, how ever , t he off ens e pr ohi bi t ed byN
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2 C : 1 4

- 3 ( a ) i s c a t e g o r i c a l l y br oader t han t he fe der al defi ni t i on of s exual abus e of a m i nor , t hen R es t r epo’ s convi ct i on does not r enderhi m r emovabl e.

1

. D ef i ni ng Sexual

A bus e of

a Mi nor O urfi r s tt as k is t o defi ne the phr as e “s exual abus e of aB y s t atut e, t he A t t orney G ener al i s entrus t ed w i th t he 2 admi ni s t r at i o n and enf

or cementof the I N A , w hi ch s t at es thatthe “det erm i nat i on and rul i ng by t he A t t orneyG ener al w i t h r es pect to q u esti o n s o f law sh all b e c o n tr o ll ing

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 3 (a)(1). T he A t t or neyG ener al , i n turn, has del egat ed thi s author i t yt o the B IA

. 8 C

. F
. R
. § 3

. 1 (d)(1 ). 9 m i nor , ” as us ed i n § 1101( a) ( 43)

. T he I N A cont ai ns no defi ni t i on of thi s phr as e, butt hr ee U ni t ed Stat es C ode s ecti ons

— 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 2242, 2243, and 3509( a)

— i ncl ude defi ni t i ons of s exual abus e. R es t rep o assert s t hatt he pr oper defi ni t i on of s exual abus e o f a m i norappea r s i n § 2243. T he governm entdi s agr ees and cont ends t hatt he defi ni t i on of s exual abus e of a m i nori s no t cl earand unambi guous . T hus , t he governm entar gues t hatw e mustappl y C hevr on defe r ence t o the B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of thi s phr as e, w hi ch i s s etfor t h i n M at t er o f R o d ri g u ez -R o d ri g u ez , 2 2 I. & N
. D ec . 9 9 1 (B IA 1 9 9 9 ). U ndert he fa m i l i ar pr i nci pl es of C hevr on, “cons i der abl e w ei ght s houl d be ac cor ded t o an execut i ve depar t m ent ’ s cons t ruct i on of a s t atut or ys cheme iti s entrus t ed t o admi ni s t er . ” C hevr on 2 U
. S. A

. , I nc. v . N atur al R es . D ef. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U

. S. 837, 844 ( 1984)

. Fur t herm or e, w e have expl aine d thatC hevr on def e r ence appl i es i n gener al t o t he l egi s l at i ve fr amew or k er ect ed b ythe IN A

. D rak es v . Z im sk i, 2 4 0 F
. 3 d 2 4 6 , 2 5 0 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). W hen conf

r ont ed w i t h a pot ent i al C hevr on appl i cati on, w e admi ni s t era thr ee- s t ep ana l y s i s . Fi r s t, w e exa m i ne the lan g u a g e o f

th e sta tu te to a sc e rta in w h e th e r i ts m e a n in g is p lain and unambi guous i n l i ghtof the s peci fi c di s put e athand. L ee v.10 A s hcr oft , 368 F. 3d 218, 222 ( 3d C i r . 2004)

. W hen the l anguage of the s t atut e i s cl ear , ouri nqui r yends

. St eel e v. B l ackman, 236 F
. 3d 13 0, 13 3 (3d C i r. 20 01 ). W h e n iti s unclear , w e m ust endea vort o di s cern co n g r es s i onal i nt entbyut i l i zi ng var i ous to o ls o f sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n . L e e , 3 6 8 F .3 d a t 2 2 2 . If th is endea vori s uns ucce s s ful , w e maydefe rt o t he i nt erpr et at i on of t h e s t a tu t e d e r i v e d b y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e e x e c u t i v e a g e n c y, provided thatt he int erpr et at i on i s r easona ble. Id.; se e al so St eel e, 236 F. 3d at133 ( not i ng gener al appl i cabi l i t yof C hevr on d ef ere n ce to B IA interpre tat ion s o f th e IN A ). S e c tio n 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 )(A ) d e f in e s “ a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y ” to i n c l u d e “ mu r d e r , r a p e , o rs e x u a l a b u s e o f a mi n o r . ” T h e I NA pr ovi des no fur t herdefi ni t i on or cr os s r efe r ence expoundi ng t he phr as e “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” exc eptt o s t at e thati t“appl i es to a n o f f e n s e . . . w h e th e r in v io la tio n o f F e d e ra l o r S ta te la w .” 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ). I n t he pas tw e have obs erved that , as a mat t erof gene r al s t ructur e and c ont ext , s ever al s u bs ect i ons i n § 1101( a) ( 43) defi n e aggr avat ed fe l oni es bycr os s - r efe r enci ng part i cul ar cr i m i nal pr ovi s i ons of the U ni t ed St at es C ode and bypr ovi di ng par enthet i cal expl anat i ons . See Pat el v. A s hcr oft , 294 F. 3d 465, 4 7 0 -71 & n .7 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). F o r ex am p le, § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(M ) defi nes as an aggr avat ed fe l o n y “an offens e that

. . . i nvol ves fr aud ordece i ti n w hi ch the l os s t o t he vi ct i m or vi ct i m s exce eds $10 , 0 0 0 [,] or. . . i s des cr i bed i n s ect i on 7201 of Ti t l e 26 ( r el at i ng t o t ax eva s i on) i n w h ich the r evenue l os s t o the G overnm entexce eds $10, 000[. ] ” W e have explained t hatt he p are n thetical ex p lana ti o n s in the se p arti cu lar sub sec ti o n s are des cr i pt i ve i n natur e, and “i nt ended onl yas a gene r al i l l us t r at i on o f th e re f e re n c e d c rim in a l sta tu tes ,” to “ a ss ist th e re a d e r w h o isA s i s di s cus s ed bel ow , i n R odr i guez- R odr i guez, t he 3 B I A t ook not e of the comm on defi ni t i on o f “se x ual abus e of a m i nor ” bef

or e i nvoki ng the fe der al defi ni t i on found i n § 3509.

11 at t empt i ng t o det erm i ne w hether a part i cul aroffe ns e cons t i tut es an aggr avat ed fe l ony . ” Pat el , 294 F. 3d at471. In o ther § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ) sub sec ti o n s, ex p lana tory par enthet i cal s s erve t o r es t r i ct or l i m i t t hos e offens es w hi ch may cons t i tut e an aggr avat ed fel ony under t he I N A

. See i d. at472. Forexampl e, § 1101( a) ( 43) ( F) defi nes as an aggr avat ed fe l ony “a c r i m e of vi ol ence ( as defi ned i n s ect i on 16 of t i t l e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode, butnoti ncl udi ng a pur el ypol i t i cal offe n s e) for w hich t he t e r m of i mpr i s on ment [i s ] a t l e a s t on e y e a r . ” T hu s, w hen C o n g ress i nt ended t o r emove cer t ai n behavi orfr om the I N A ’ s ambi t , i t di d s o by i ncorpor at i ng a r es tr i ct i ve , r atherthan des cr i pt i ve , p a re n th e tica l. Sect i on 1 1 0 1 (a) ( 43) ( A ) i s devoi d of anydes cr i pt i ve or restri cti v e p are n theticals an d sim p lyli sts th e c ri m es o f “ m u rde r, r ape, ors exual abus e of a m i no r” w it houtfur t herdefi ni t i on. W hen contr as t ed w i t h t he s t ructur e of the s t atut e as a w hol e, s uch an omi s s i on i s i ns t ruct i ve, for i t i s t ypi cal l yunder s t ood t hat th e leg isla tu re p ro c e e d s p u rp o se f u ll yw h e n it i n se rts s p e c if ic l anguage i n one s t atu tory sec t i on butom i t s i ti n another

. See S an d o val v. R eno, 166 F. 3d 225, 241 ( 3d C i r . 1999)

. I n ot her § 1101 (a) ( 43) s ect i ons , C ongr es s s peci fi ed ce r t ai n aggr avat ed fel oni es bycr os s - r efe r enci ng cr i m i nal s t atut ory pr ovi s i ons . T he fa ct th at i t did n o t do so w ith “ s e x u al ab u se o f a m ino r” i n d i c a t e s t h a ti ti n t e n d e d t h a tt h e p h r a s e b e g i v e n i t s comm on l aw de f i n i t i o n . Se e Dr a k e s , 2 4 0 F. 3 d a t2 4 9 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h at

312 “[w ] her e fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es us e w or ds of es t abl i s hed m eaning w i t ho ut fur t her el abo rat i on , cou rt s typical l ygive tho se t erm s theircom m on l aw defini t i on ”). A l t ernat i vely , C on gress m ayhave i nt ended f

orthe B I A t o ut i l i ze i t s expert i s e t o defi ne t he phr as e, s ee Chevr on, 4 67 U

. S. at843- 44 ( “I f C ongr es s has exp l i ci t l yl efta gap for the ag encyt o fil l , t here i s an exp res s d e leg a tio n o f

a u th o rityto th e a g e n c y to e lu c id a te a sp e c if ic pr ovi s i on of t he st atut e by r egul at i on. ”) , or i t m ayhave i ns ert ed t he gene r i c phr as e bec aus e the def i ni t i on of s exual abuse of a m i norvar i es bys t at e and f eder al l aw , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Z aval a- Sust ai t a, 214 F
. 3 d 601, 605- 06 ( 5th C i r . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng tha tbeca us e s exual abus e of a m i norl acks l egal s peci fi ci ty , i ti s l es s l i kel yt hatC ongr es s i nt ended a narr ow r eadi ng of the phr as e)

. I n anycas e, t he pert i nentpoi nti s t hatt he pr eci s e def

i ni t i on of t he phr as e i s m os tas s ur edl ynotcl earand un am biguou s. A ccor di ng t o R es t r epo, t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryunder l y i ng t he I N A evi dence s an i nt ent t o defi ne s exual abus e of a m i norby r efe r ence t o t he fe der al cr i m i nal defi ni t i on cont ai ned i n § 2243. T he thrus tof R es t r epo’ s ar gum entcent ers u p o n t i m i ng; he d e e ms i ts i g n i f

i c a n tt h a tCon g r e s s a me n d e d th e d e f i n i t i on s ect i on of § 2243 i n t he s ame l egi s l at i on t hatamended § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) t o i ncl u d e sex u al abus e of a m i noras anC ongr es s amended t he def i ni t i on of “s exual abus e of a 4 m i nor ” cont ai ned i n 18 U

. S. C

. § 2243 w hen i tpas s ed the A m ber H agerm an C hi l d Pr ot ect i on A ctof 1996 ( her ei n af ter , t he
“ A m b e r H a g e rm a n A c t”) . S e e A m b e r H a g e rm a n C h ild Pr ot ect i on A ctof 1996, Pub. L
. N o. 104- 208, 110 St at
. 3009- 31 ( codi fi ed at18 U

. S. C

. § 2241)

. T he A m ber H agerm an A ctw as enac t ed as part of

the O m n ibu s C o n so li d ated A p p rop ri ati o ns A ct o f 1 9 9 7 , P u b . L . 1 0 4 -2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S tat. 3 0 0 9 -1 . In a se p a ra te p o r t i o n o f t h e o mni b u s b i l l , Con g r e s s amended § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) , i ns ert i ng “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” al ongs i de “murde r ” and “r ape. ” See H

. R
. R ep. N o. 104- 828, at83 ( 1996) ( C onf. R ep. )

. A m endment of § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) w as partof the I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R efor m and I m m i gr antR es pons i bi l i t yA ct o f 1 9 9 6 (“IIR IR A ”). 13 aggr avat ed fe l ony . R es t r epo as s ert s that“i dent i cal w or ds us ed 4 i n d i f f e r e n tp a r t s o f t h e s a me a c t a r e i n t e n d e d t o h a v e th e s a me m eani ng. ” D ep’ t of R evenue v. A C F I ndus

. , 510 U

. S. 332, 342 ( 1994) (qu o ti n g Sor ens on v. Sec’ yof Tre as ury , 475 U

. S. 851, 860 ( 1 9 8 6 )

. Th i s ma x i m i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o th e l e g i s l a t i ve en ac tm en t atissue , w h ich w as o m n ibu s legislat ion

. R estrep o ’s a rg u m e n t se e k s to c o n jo in th e m e a n in g o f

w o rd s u se d in s epar at e and di s t i ncts t atut es . O m n ibu s l egi s l at i on oft en in v o lv e s th e c o m b in a tio n o f d isp a ra te m a tters in to a sin g le b ill , t he uni t arypacka gi ng of w hi ch maybe des i gned t o pr es entthe ex ec u ti v e w ith an all -or-n o thing sign ing d ec isi o n . S ee B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary 186 ( 9th ed. 2009) ( defi ni ng “omni bus bi l l ” as a “si ngl e bi l l cont ai ni ng var i ous di s t i nct m att er s , us ual l ydr aft ed i n t hi s w ayt o for ce the exe cut i ve ei t hert o acc eptal l the u n related m ino r pro v isi o n s o r t o v eto th e m ajor p rov isi o n ”). I nA qui ck perus al of the omni bus l egi s l at i on i n ques t i on 5 i l l ust rat es t his po i nt. T he pri m ary pu rpose of the b ill is to appr opr i at e moni es for the fi s cal y earendi ng Sept ember30, 1997. See O m ni bus C ons ol i dat ed A ppr opr i at i ons A ct , 1 997, P ub

. L
. 10 4-208 , 11 0 S tat. 30 09 -1. H ow ever, the b i l l al so a m e n d s , in tera lia , t he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct a n d th e P ri v a c yP ro te c tio n A c t, a n d e n a c ts , in tera lia , the C h ild Por nogr aphy Pr event i on A ctof 1996 and the A m berH agerm an A ct
. It i s si m plyun reas on able t o assum e t hat C on gress l egis l at ed w i t h u nifor m i ntentacross such d i sparat e st atutes
. 14 m os t i ns t ance s , t her e i s a br oad s pectrum of congr es s i onal i nt ent i n pl ay ac ross t he di s t i ncts t atut es t hatcompri s e the l ar ger enac t m ent
. H ence , R es t r epo’ s s t atut orycons t ruct i on ar gum ent

5 i s unavai l i ng. Re s t r e p o a l s o a s s e r t s t h a tth e d e f i n i t i o n o f

a g g r a v a t ed fel onys etfor t h i n § 1 1 0 1( a) ( 43) ( A ) s ubs um es an el ementof v i o l e n c e . He i n v o k e s t h e ru l e of n o s c itu r a so c iis , w hi ch cons t ru e s a n a mbi g u o u s wor d i n th e c o n t e x to f th e wor ds su rrou n d ing it

. B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary 1 1 6 0 -61 (9th ed

. 2 0 0 9 ). R es t r epo cont ends t hat vi ol ence i s an i nt egr al el ementof m ur der and ra p e and, t her efor e, i tm us tal s o be an i nt egr al el ementof s exual abus e of a m i nor . C ons i der i ng t he br oader cont ext of the l egi s l ati on ati s s ue, t hi s cont ent i on i s unper s uas i ve. See Lee, 3 6 8 F
. 3 d at 22 2 (co u n seli n g co u rt s to e x am ine th e statuto ry l ang uag e, as w el l as “the b ro a d e r con t ext of the st atute as a w h o le”); see a lso K ell yv . R o b inso n , 4 7 9 U
. S

. 3 6 , 4 3 (19 8 6 ) (“In e x p o u n d in g a sta tu te, w e m u st n o t b e g u id e d b ya s in g le s ent ence or m ember of a s ent ence , butl ook t o the pr ovi s i ons of15 t he w ho l e l aw , and t o it s obj ect and po l i cy . ”). W hen C on gress am en d ed § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(A ) to inclu d e se x u al ab u se o f a m ino r, i ts i m ul tane o u sl yamended t he I N A t o cl as s i fycr i m es of d o m e stic v io len c e , s talk in g , c h ild a b u se , c h ild n e g lec t, an d c h ild abandonmentas gr ounds fordeport abi l i t y . See Pub. L
. N o. 104- 2 0 8 , 1 1 0 S t a t
. 3 0 0 9

- 6 3 9

- 4 0 ( c o d i f i e d a t 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 2 7 (a )(2 )(E )). T h e H o u s e c o n f e re n c e re p o rt sp e c if

ica lly connec t ed thes e tw o amendm ent s , expl ai ni ng that
a n a lien c o n v icte d o f c rim e s o f

d o m e stic vi ol ence , s t al ki ng, or chi l d abus e i s d epor t abl e. T he c r i me s o f

r a p e a n d s e x u a l a b u s e o f a mi nor ar e el s ew her e cl as s i fi ed as aggr avated fel oni es underI N A s ec t i on 101( a) ( 43) , thus m aki ng al i ens con v ict ed of thos e cr i m es depor t abl e and in e lig ib le f

o r m o st f o rm s o f im m ig ra tio n b e n e f

its orr el i ef f

r om depor t at i on. H
. R
. R ep. N o. 1 0 4 -8 2 8 , at 8 3 (1 9 9 6 ) (C o n f

. R e p .). A s th is pas s age i l l us t r at es, C ongr es s i nt ended t o expand both the p ro tec tio n s a f

f o rd e d to m in o rs a n d th e p e n a lti e s a p p lica b le toO u r re c o u rse to leg isla tiv e h isto ryis a p p ro p ria te in th is 6 m att er. W h en “statuto ry lang u ag e do es no t exp ress C o n g ress’s i nt entunequi vocal l y , a courttr adi t i onal l yr e f e r s t o the l egi s l at i ve h isto ry a n d th e a tm o sp h e re in w h ich th e sta tu te w a s e n a c ted in an att empt t o det erm i ne the co n gr es s i onal purpos e. ” W hi t e v. L or d A bbet t& C o. L L C , 553 F
. 3 d 2 4 8, 254 ( 3d C i r . 2009) (qu o ti n g U n ite d S tates v
. G reg g , 2 2 6 F
. 3 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 7 (3d C ir

. 2000) )

. W e ar e, of cour s e, aw ar e t hatexcl us i ve r el i ance upon l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yi s notpr efe r r ed, an d w e have s ur vey ed the r e l e v a n tl e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y w i t h c a u t i o n . S e e M o r g a n v . G a y, 4 6 6 F. 3 d 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( s t a t i n g t h a t r e l i ance “on l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yt o di s cern l egi s l at i ve i nt ents houl d be done w i t h cau t i on , i f atal l ”). In the p res ent m a tter , t he H ou se con ference reporti s u sef ul because i tsugg est s that C on gress i nt ended t o i m pl ement compre hens i ve pr ot ect i ons for m i nor v ictim s th a t w e re e x p a n siv e in n a tu re . T h is re a d in g c o m p o rts w ith th e stru c tu re o f

§ 1 1 0 1 (a )(4 3 ) ( A ), w h ich p u rp o se f u lly leav es m u rde r, rap e, an d sex u al ab u se of a m ino r u n d ef ined

. In addi t i on, i ti s cons i s t entw i t h t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s exual abus e of a m i nor , a fa ct orw hi ch i s r el evanti n t he thi r d s t ep of th e C h e v ro n in q u ir y . S e e in f ra p p . 1 5 -1 7
. 16 a lien s w h o c o m m it crim e s a g a in st m in o rs. A c c o rd in g ly , it 6 w oul d be count er i ntui t i ve t o r equi r e an e l ementof vi ol ence and l i m i t t he defi ni t i on of sexua l abus e of a m i nort o thos e off ens es appea r i ng i n § 2243. T hi s cons t ruct ion w oul d exemptfr om § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) num er ous offe ns es w hi ch ar e co n si der edForexampl e, under N ew J er s eyl aw , aggr avat ed 7 c r i mi n a l s e x u a l c o n t a c tc o n s i s t s o f a n a c to f

s exual c o n t a c t

— d e f

i n e d a s “ a n i n t e n t i o n a l t o u c h i n g b yth e v i c t i m or act or , ei t herdi r ect l yorthr ough t he cl othi ng, of the vi ct i m ’ s or act or ’ s i nt i m at e part s ”— upon a vi ct i m t hati s atl eas tt hi r t een but l es s than si xt een y ear s of age. See N

. J
. St at
. A nn. §§ 2C : 14- 1, 2C : 14- 2. I n Penns y l vani a, an ac t orm aybe gui l t yof i ndece nt as s aul t , w hi ch i s defi ned as a “se x ual offe ns e, ” i f he ors he t ouches anyof th e “s exual orot heri nt i m at e part s ” of a per s on undert he age of thi r t een or , al t ernat i vel y , undert he age of s i xt een w hen the off

enderi s four orm or e y ear s ol dert han the v ictim

. S e e 1 8 P a . C o n s. S tat. § 3126. U nderD el aw ar e l aw , an i ndi vi dual i s gui l t yof unl aw ful s exual cont acti n t he s econd degr ee w hen he ors he inte nt i onal l yt ouches anotherper s on undert he age of ei ght een on the a n u s, b rea s t , but t ocks or g e n italia a n d th e to u c h in g o c c u rs th ro u g h th e c lo th in g . S e e D e l. C ode A nn. 11, §§ 761, 768. E ach of thes e cr i m i nal pr ovi s i ons pr os cr i bes t ouchi ng t hr ough the clot hi ng. H ow ever , § 2243 s peci fi cal l yexempt s t ouchi ng t hr ough the clothi ng fr om t he r a n g e o f d e f

i n e d c r i mi n a l c o n d u c t
. Th u s , wer e we t o acc ept R es t r epo’ s i nt erpr et at i on of § 1101( a) ( 43) ( A ) , none of the above- des cr i bed ac t s

— al l of w hi ch ar e defi ned as cr i m i nal s ex act s ag ains tm i nor s

— w oul d qual i fyas an aggr avat ed fe l ony u n d e rt h e I NA. 17 s ex u al a b u se of a m i norunders t at e l aw ; s uch a r eadi ng does 7 not comport w i t h t he l egi s l at i ve hi s t oryexami ned above and theC ongr es s amended § 1101( a) ( 43 )( A ) as par tof the 8 I I R I R A

. See s upr a not e 4. I ti s undeni abl e thatthe over ar chi ng purpos e of t hi s s t atut e i s t o augmentthe pr ocedur es forr emoval of al i ens w h o ar e convi ct ed of f el onyoffe ns es . Forexampl e, th e e n a c tm e n t m a n d a te s d e te n tio n p e n d in g d e p o rt a tio n , 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 23 1; w i t hd raw s j ud i ci al dis cret i on to i m po se pr obat i on ort o s us pend a s ent ence w hen the off ens e of convi ct i on r equi res de por t at i on, s ee § 1101( a) ( 48) ; fac i l i t at es r emo v a l o n a n e x p e d i t e d b a s i s , § 1 2 2 8 ; e l i mi n a t e s a § 212( c) w ai verof deport abi l i t ypr evi ous l yavai l abl e to aggr avat ed fe lon s, § 1 2 2 8 ; si g n ifi ca n tl yrestri cts an ag g rav ated fe lon ’s op po rtun i t y for app eal by stri pp i ng cou rt s of j uri sdi ct i on to r evi ew or der s of r emoval , § 1252; forbi ds r eentr yw hen an a l i en i s convi ct ed of a n aggr ava ted fel ony , § 1182; and gi ves r etr oact i ve ef

fec tt o t he aggr avat ed fe l onyp rov is i on, s ee § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ; s e e a l s o s e e W i l l i a m J
. J o h n s o n , Not e , W h en M i s demeanor s ar e Fel oni es : T he A ggr avat ed Fel ony of Sexual A bus e of a M i nor , 52 N. Y. L. S CH
. L. R EV . 419, 428- 33 ( 2007) ( det ai l i ng var ious I I R I R A pr ovi s i ons i ncr eas i ng the s cope of d ep o rt ab il ity ). T h e c o m p reh en sive sev erityo f th is statutory enac t m ents t r ongl ys ugges t s t hatthe narr ow defi n i t i on of “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” propos ed by R es t r epo i s i ncons i s t ent w ith c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. 18 br oadercont exti n w hi ch the s t atut e w as enac t ed. 8 W e h av e car eful l yexamine d the tex t of § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(A ), t he pr eci s e cont exti n w hi ch i t s l anguage i s us ed, and the l ar ger fr amew or k under l y i ng the s t atut e’ s purpos e. O uri nqui r yl eave s u s in a sta te o f

in terp re tiv e u n c e rta in ty , an d w e a re u n a b le to19 d isc e rn th e c lea r a n d u n m ista k a b le in ten t o f C o n g re ss w ith r e s p e c tt o t h e d e f

i n i t i o n o f “ s e x u a l a b u s e o f a mi n o r . ” T h u s , we m us tl ook t o t he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the phr as e and det erm i ne w hether t hat i nt erpr et at i on i s r eas onabl e. In M att er of R od ri g u ez- R odr i guez, an en banc p an el of the B IA th o ro u g h ly e x a m in e d th e sta tu to ry lan g u a g e , leg isla tiv e in ten t, an d legislat ive pu rpo se be h ind the IN A ’s en ac tm en t. S ee 2 2 I. & N
. D ec. 991. T he pane l det erm i ned thatal t hough “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” w as undefi ned i n t he i m m i gr at i on s t atut e, the l egi s l atur e’ s unm i s t akabl e i nt ent “w as t o expand the def i ni t i on o f a g g rav ated fe lon yan d to p rov ide a co m p reh en sive statu tory schem e to c o v e r cr i m es agai nstchil dren. ” Id. at99 4. T hu s, R o d ri g u ez -R o d ri g u ez co n clud ed that “se x u al a b u se o f a m ino r” w as m os tappr opr i at el ydefi ned by§ 3509( a) ( 8) , a code s ect i on r el at i n g to the ri ght s of chi l d vi ct i m s and w i t nes s es i n fede r al cr i m i nal cas es . I d. at 995- 96. Sect i on 3509( a) ( 8) defi nes s exual a b u se to in c lu d e “ th e e m p lo ym e n t, u se , p e rsu a sio n , ind u c e m e n t, ent i cement , or coer ci on of a c hi l d t o engage i n, oras s i s tanother per s on t o engage i n, s exual ly expl i ci tconductorthe r ape, m ol es t at i on, pr os t i tut i on, or other form of sexua l expl oi t at i on of c h ild re n , o r i n c e s t w ith c h ild re n .” § 3 5 0 9 (a )( 8 ). T h e p an e l e x p lai n ed that the b roa d n ature o f § 3 5 0 9 ’s defi ni t i on w as cons i s t entw i t h congr es s i onal in te ntt o enac t i m m i gr at i on l egi s l at i on w hi ch compr ehens i vel yaddr es s ed the ra n g e o f

m isc o n d u c t p e rp e tra ted a g a in st c h ild re n w h ile acc om m odat i ng t he di ver gentw ay s i n w hi ch s tat es ca t egor i ze an d d ef ine c h il d sex crim es. A s p art o f i ts r ati o n ale, th e B o ard a ls o l o o k e d to th e c o m m o n la w d e f in itio n o f

“ s e x u a l a b u s e ,” d e f in e d b yB lac k ’s L a w D ictio n a rya s “ ill e g a l se x a c ts per form ed aga i ns ta mi norbya par ent , guar di an, r el at i ve, orT h e p an el’s reco u rse to B lack ’s L aw D ic tion ary 9 c o m p o rts w ith th e a c c e p ted m e th o d o f a f f o rd in g ter m s th e ir com m on defini t i on w hen t heyare l eftun defined b yC o ng res s. See D r akes , 240 F. 3d at249. T h e R o d r ig u e z -R o d rig u e z p a n e l w a s c a re f u l to n o te 10 t hat i t w as not adopt i ng § 3509( a) ( 8) as a r es t r i ct i ve orl i m i t i ng defi ni t i on, “but i nvok[i ng] i tas a gui de i n i dent i fy i ng the types o f c ri m e s w e w o u ld c o n s i d e r t o b e s e x u a l a b u s e o f a m in o r.” R odr i guez- R odr i guez, 22 I

. & N
. at996. 20 ac q u aintan ce . ” B lack ’s L a w D ict ion ary1 3 7 5 (6th ed

. 1 9 9 0 ). A ccor di ng t o R odr i guez- R odr i guez, “the com m on us age of t he t erm i ncl u d es a br oad r ange of m al t r eatm entof a s exual natur e, ” a r eadi ng compat i bl e w i t h § 3509. 22 I
. & N
. D ec. at

9 1 0 995- 96

. Si gni fi cant l y , the B I A r ecogni zed thati tw as “not obl i ged t o adopt a fe der al ors t at e s t atut orypr ovi s i on” t o defi ne “ se x u a l ab u se o f

a m in o r.” I d . at 9 9 4 . A s th e S e c o n d C irc u it has expl ai ned: I tw oul d be tr oubl ing i f the B I A had done no m or e than pl uck t he defi ni t i on of “s exual abus e of a m in o r” f

ro m § 3 5 0 9 (a ). T h a t s ta tu te s e ts f o rth p ro c e d u re s f

o r p ro tec tin g c h ild v ictim s a n d c h ild w itn e s s e s i n th e c o u rs e o f f e d e ra l liti g a tio n . . . . W e a g re e th a t th e § 3 5 0 9 (a ) d e f in iti o n is ap p rop ri ate n o t si m p lyb ec a u se itap p ea rs s om ew her e i n the U ni t ed St ates C ode, but b e c a u se it i s c o n so n a n t w ith th e g e n e ra lly under s t ood br oad meani ng of t he t erm “s exual a b u se ” a s re f

lec ted in B lac k ’s: “ A n ill e g a l se x a c t,21 esp . o n e p erf

o rm ed ag ains t a m ino r. ” S ee B lack ’s L aw D ict ion ary , 1 0 (7th ed

. 1 9 9 9 ). M u g a lli v . A sh c ro f

t, 2 5 8 F .3 d 5 2 , 5 8 -5 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (f o o tn o te om i t t ed)

. W e agr ee w i t h t he Second Ci rcu itt hatt he r eas onabl enes s of the B I A ’ s r es or t t o § 3509( a) t o defi ne “s exual abus e of a m i nor ” i s r oot ed i n the cons onance betw een that s t atut or ypr ovi s i on and the com m onl yacc ept ed def i ni t i on of
“ s e x u a l a b u s e .” W e concl ude t hatt he B I A ’ s defi ni t i on of s exual abus e of a m i no r i s a r easona ble one an d that i t i s ap propri at e t o ex erci se C hev ron def

e re n ce. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l define sexua l abu se of a mi norbyr efe r ence t o § 3509( a)

. N otonl yi s ourconcl us i on con si st ent w i t h p ri n c ipl es of st atutorycon struct i on , i tal so re p re se n ts a lo g ica l ex ten sio n o f o u r p re c e d e n t. In d e e d , th is is nott he fi r s tt i m e w e have been pr es ent ed w i t h a ques t i on conce r ni ng t he meani ng of s exual abus e of a m i nor . I n Si ngh v. A s hcr oft , 383 F. 3d 144 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , w e w er e as ked t o deci de w h ethe r a c o n v ict ion fo r “u n law fu l sex u al co n tact i n the th ir d degr ee” underD el aw ar e l aw cons t itut es “s exual abus e of a m ino r” u n d er § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 )(A ). T h e p eti tio n er in tha t m att er, K h a im ra j S in g h , w a s c o n v icte d f o r to u c h in g th e b re a st o f h is cous i n, w ho w as undert he age of si xt een. I d. at 148. W hen he l at erappea r ed bef

or e an i m m i gr ati o n judge , he w as deemed r emovabl e as an aggr avat ed fe l on. I d. at149- 50. T he im m igrati o n jud g e re ac h ed this di s po sit ion b yinv o k ing § 3 5 0 9 ’s defi ni t i on of “s exual abus e, ” but he di d notappl yt he ca t egor i cal a p p r o a c h m a n d a t e d b yT a y l o r . S e e i d

. a t1 5 0 , 1 5 2

. We c riticiz e d th is in terp re tiv e a n a ly sis a n d e lec ted n o t to a p p ly C h e v r o n d e f

e re n c e w h e re “ th e IJ o f f e re d n o re a so n f

o r h is deci s i o n n o tt o a p p l yTa y l o r ’ s c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h , ” a n d the22 B IA affirm e d w itho ut opi nion. Id. at15 2. W e no nethel ess ex p lai n ed that w e ha d “n o q u arrel” w ith the im m igrati o n jud g e’s i nvocat i on of § 3509 and w e re s erved deci s i on on w hetherthat code s ect i on appr opr i at el ydefi ned s exual abus e of a m i nor . I d. at153. T w o y ear s l at er , w e ass um ed, w i t hout deci di ng, t hatt he B I A ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of s exual abus e of a m i nor w as appr opr i at e. See Stubbs , 452 F. 3d at255- 56. Fur t herm or e, t w o of ours i s t er c irc u its h a v e e x p licitlya d o p ted th e d e f in iti o n su p p lied in R odr i guez- R odr i guez vi a C hevr on defe r ence , w hi l e s ever al o th e rs h a v e a ss u m e d th a t § 3 5 0 9 re p re se n ts a n a p p ro p ria te d ef init ion o f “se x u al a b u se o f a m ino r. ” S ee G aisk o v v . H o lder, 567 F. 3d 832, 835 ( 7t h C i r . 2009) ; J ames v. M ukas ey , 522 F. 3d 250, 254 ( 2d C i r . 2008) ; M ugal i v. A s hcr oft , 258 F. 3d 52, 55- 56 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ; s ee a l s o V ar gas v. D ep’ tof H om el and Sec. , 451 F. 3d 1105, 1107- 08 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( as s um i ng appl i cabi l i t yof § 3509 defi ni t i on) ; B ahar v. A s hcr oft , 264 F. 3d 1309, 1311- 12 ( 11t h C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng thatt he R odr i guez- R o dr i guez i nt erpr et at i on i s notunr eas onabl e) ; Z aval a- Sust ai t a, 214 F. 3d 601, 606- 08 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng that § 3509 defi ni t i on i s consi st ent w i t h § 11 01 (a) (43)( A )’ s d efi nit i on of sex ual abuse of a minor)

. I n contr as t , the N i nth C i r cui ti s the onl yfede r al appel l at e courtt o r ej ectthe R odr i guez- R odr i guez i nt e rp r e t a t i on. I n E s t r ada- E s pi noza v. M ukas ey , 546 F. 3d 1147 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( e n b a n c ) , t h e Ni n t h Ci r c u i th e l d th a tChe v r o n d e f e r e n c e was i n a p p r o p r i a t e , a n d i td e f i n e d s e x u a l a b u s e o f

a mi n o rby r e f e r e n c e t o § 2 2 4 3

. W e d o n o t f i nd t he ra ti o deci dendi of E stra d a -E sp in o z a to b e p e rsu a siv e f o r se v e ra l re a so n s. F irst, it w oul d be di ffi cul tt o conj ur e up tw o m or e di verge n tfac t pat t erns . E s t r ada- E s pi no za, age tw enty , w as ens conce d i n aT h e E s t r ada- E s pi noza c our ts ur vey ed the comm on 11 c o n tem p o ra ry m e a n in g o f se x u a l ab u se o f

a m in o r, w ith p arti cul ar emphasi s on t he w or d “abus e. ” I d. at 1152- 55. It concl uded that , undercont empora r ys t andar ds , notal l s exual act i vi t yw i t h ol deradol es cent s

— s uch as s i xt een - and s event eeny e a r-o ld s— is a b u siv e . Id . at 1 1 5 3 . A lth o u g h its ra th e r m y o p ic analy si s of st atutoryrape l aw i s d icta , t he cour tcl ear l yut i l i zed t hi s anal y s i s t o j us t i fy i t s det erm i nat i on t hat§ 2243 i s cons i s t ent w ith th e “ g e n e ric se n se in w h ich [ se x u a l ab u se o f a m in o r] is now us ed i n t he cr i m i nal codes of m os ts t at es . ” See Tay l or , 495 U
. S. at598. R es t r epo w as char ged w i t h act s of s exual cont actthat 12 o cc u rre d “f

rom 1 9 9 2 to ap p rox im atelyD ec em b er o f 1 9 9 3 [,]” b u t R e stre p o a d m itt e d to p o lice th a t h e b e g a n f o n d lin g h is daught eri n 1990, appr oxi m at el yfoury ear s pr ior to hi s M ar ch 1 9 9 4 a rre st. T h u s, a c c o rd in g to R e stre p o ’s o w n a d m iss io n , h is d au g h te r— w h o w as b o rn o n Ju ly1 5 , 1 9 7 7

— w as tw elve y ea rs ol d w hen the off

ens e bega n. 23 c o n se n su a l re latio n sh ip w ith h is f if tee n - o r six tee n -y e a r-o ld gi r l fr i end. 546 F. 3d at 1150. B oth s et s of par ent s appr oved of th e rel at i on shi p, and , ult i m at el y , t he co up l e rai sed a ch i ld t og et her. Id. at11 50 , 11 60

. D ri ven bythese co m pell i ng fact s, and arm ed w i t h a heur i s t i c s ur veyof s t atut oryr ape l aw , the N inth C ir cu itfo u n d n o “a b u se” elem en t in E str ad a-E sp ino za ’s co n v ict ion

. Id. at 11 5 2 -56

. In sta rk c o n tr ast, R estrep o ’s

11 s exual t ouchi ng of hi s daught er , comm enc i ng w hen s he w as onl yt w el ve y ear s ol d, i s pat ent l y non- cons ens ual and abus i ve. 12 S ec o n d , the E str ad a-E sp ino za co u rt ’s st atuto ry24 con st ruct i on anal y s i s i s fat al l yfl aw ed. C oncl udi ng thatt he gener i c el ement s of s exual abus e of a m i norar e def i ned i n 18 U
. S

. C

. § 2 24 3, the cou rtrat i on al i zes C on gress ’s fai l ure t o crossrefer ence § 22 43 i n § 11 01 (a) (43)( A ) as foll ow s: [ T ]h e re is a c lea r d istin g u ish in g c h a ra c ter istic b e tw e e n th e a g g ra v a ted f e lo n ies th a t a re lin k e d to o th e r sta tu to ryp ro v isio n s a n d th o se th a t ar e n o t. T ho se t hat refer t o a broad cat ego ry of off enses, us i ng a pot ent i al l y ambi guous phr as e, refer ence ot hers t atut or ypr ovi s i ons forcl ar i fi cat i on. O n t he o t h e rh a n d , t h o s e t ha t r e f e rt o a s p e c i f

i c c r i me w hich i s al r eadycl ear l ydefi ned i n cr i m i nal l aw have no ne ed fora cr os s - r efe r ence . 546 F. 3d at 1155. W e di s agr ee w i t h t hi s anal y s i s . W e bel i eve i ti s far m or e l i kel y t hat C ongr es s es chew ed cr os s r efe r ence s for crim es id en ti fied o n lyb yco m m o n p a rl an ce , su ch as m u rde r, rap e, sex u al ab u se o f a m ino r, an d thef t bec au se th ese term s are notcl ear l ydefi ned and c a n n o t b e c lea rly d e f in e d b y a s im p le cr os s - r efe r ence . T o t he contr ary , C ongr es s purpos eful l ydi d not empl oycr os s - r efe r ence s forthes e gene r i c cr i m es t o ens ur e the inco rpo ratio n o f a b roa d ran g e o f d iverse stat e statuto ry defini t i on s. “Theft ” i s a pr i m e exa m pl e of a br oad t erm that p o tential lyfa ll s w ith in the a m b ito f m an ystat e statuto ry d e f in iti o n s. In d e e d , the lan g u a g e o f th e IN A im p licitly a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e r e a r e a v a r i e t y o f “ t h e f t ” a n d “ b u r g l a r y” off enses. S ee 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 10 1(a) (43)( G ) (l i st i ng “a t heft offen se ( i ncl udi ng r ecei ptof s t ol en pr oper t y ) orbur gl aryoffe ns e for w hi ch the t erm of i m pr i s onm ent[i s ] atl eas tone y ear ” as anN
. Y
. Penal L aw § 155. 25 ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. 13 G r aham, 169 F. 3d 787 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng thatan al i en w ho w as convi ct ed of pet i t l ar ceny under N
. Y
. Penal L aw § 155. 25 and r ece ived a s ent ence of one y earw as r emovabl e undert he I N A )

. Som e s t atut es i ncl ude spec i fi cat i ons as t o the val ue of the pr oper t ys t ol en. See, e. g. , C al

. Penal C ode § 487( a) ( pr ohi bi t i ng t he t aki ng of “money , l abor , or r eal orper s onal pr oper t y. . . of a val ue exce edi ng four hundr ed dol l ar s ”) ; s ee al so R ami r ezV i l l al pando v. H ol der , 601 F. 3d 891 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( hol di ng t hata convi ct i on underC al

. Penal C ode 487( a) is a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fel onyundert he I N A )

. A nothervar i at i on a p p e a ri n g in m a n ys ta tu te s is a n e le m e n t o f in te n t. S e e , e .g ., C onn. G en. St at
. § 53a- 119 ( “A per s on comm i t s l ar cenyw hen, w i t h i nt ent t o depr i ve anot her of prope r t y or t o appr opr i at e the s ame t o hi m s el f or a t hi r d per s on, he w r ongful l yt akes , obt ai ns orw i t hhol ds s uch pr oper t yfr om an ow ner . ”) ; s ee a l s o A l m ei da v . H o ld e r, 5 8 8 F .3 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t a convi ct i on underei t hert heoryof i nt en t art i cul at ed i n C onn. G en . S tat
. § 5 3 a-1 1 9 is a c o n v ict ion fo r an ag g rav ated fe lon y ). In a d d iti o n , the re m a y b e a m u lti tu d e o f n u a n c e s to a sin g le s t atut or ydefi ni t i on. For ex ampl e, C onn. G en. St at
. § 53a- 119 co n tai ns a bas i c def

i ni t i on of l ar ceny , fol l ow ed bya l i s tof ei ght een of

fens es i ncl uded i n t hatdefi ni t i on. See N
. Y
. Penal L aw § 165. 50 ( “A per s on is gu il tyof 14 cr i m i nal pos s es s i on of s t ol en pr oper t yi n the thi r d degr ee w hen h e k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss e s s to le n p ro p e rty , w ith in ten t to b e n e f it 25 aggr avat ed fe l ony )

. T heftoffe ns es r ange f r om “s t eal [i ng] p ro p e rty ” to “ k n o w in g lyp o ss e ss [ in g ] sto len p ro p e r ty ” to

13 14hi m s el f ora per s on ot hert han an ow nert her eof ort o i m pede the r eco v erybyan ow nerther eof, and w hen the val ue of the pr oper t yexce eds t hr ee thous and dol l ar s . ”) ; s ee a l s o B ur ke v. M u k a se y , 5 0 9 F .3 d 6 9 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t a convi ct i on underN
. Y
. Penal L aw § 165. 5 0 is an aggr avat ed fe lon yco n v ict ion ). N ev. R ev. St at
. A nn. § 205. 0832( 1) ( b) ; s ee a l s o N ol os 15 v. H ol der , 2010 U

. S. A pp. L E X I S 14060 ( 5th C i r . 2010) ( hol di ng t hatN ev. R ev. St at
. A nn. § 205. 0832( 1) ( b) m eet s the cour t ’ s “gene r i c def

i ni t i on of theft ” and ther efor e qual i fi es as an ag g rav ated fe lon y ). O f cour s e, s om e cr i m i nal conductt hat m i ghtbe char act er i zed a s “theft ” does not qual i fy as an aggr avat ed fe l ony unde r§ 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G)

. Se e , e . g . , Ca l

. Veh

. Cod e § 1 0 8 5 1 ( a) ( “A nyper s on w ho dr i ves or t akes a vehi cl e nothi s orherow n, w i t houtt he cons entof t he ow nert her eof, and w i t h i nt entei t her to p e rm a n e n tlyo r te m p o ra rily d e p riv e th e o w n e r th e re o f o f h is or her t i t l e t o or pos s es s i on of the vehi cl e . . . oranyper s on w ho i s a part y o r an a cce s s oryt o oran ac compl i ce i n t he dr i vi ng or u n au tho ri ze d takin g o r st ea li n g , is gu il tyo f a p u b li c o ff en se[

. ]”), O r . R ev. St at
. § 165. 800 ( “A per s on comm i t s the cr i m e of i dent i t y t heft i f t he per s on, w i t h the i nt entt o dece i ve ordefr aud, obt ai ns , pos s es s es , t r ans fer s , cr eat es , ut t er s orconvert s t o the per so n ’ s ow n us e the per s onal i dent i fi cat i on of another per s on. ”) ; s ee al s o Penul i ar v. M ukas ey , 528 F. 3d 603, 611- 14 26 “ u s[ in g ] th e se rv ice s o r pr o p e rty o f a n o th e r p e rso n e n tru ste d to [th e d ef en d an t] o r plac ed in h is o r he r po sses sion

. . . fo r a lim ited u se .” T h e p h ra se “ se x u a l a b u se o f a m in o r” sim ilarly

15( 9t h C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng that a convi ct i on underC al

. V eh. C ode § 1 08 51 (a) do es n o t cat egor i cal l yqual i fyas an aggr avat ed fel onyconvi ct i on) , M anduj ano- R eal v. M ukas ey , 526 F. 3d 585 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a c o n v ictio n u n d e r O r. R e v . S tat. § 165

. 8 0 0 is n o t a convi ct i on foran aggr avat ed fe l onytheft o ff en se). See, e. g. , A l as ka S tat
. §§ 11. 41. 434, 11. 41. 436, 16 11. 41. 438, 11. 41. 440, D
. C

. C ode §§ 22- 3009. 01, 22- 3009. 02, M e. R ev. St at
. A nn. t i t
. 17- A , § 254, M d. C ode A nn. , C r i m . L aw § 3- 602, U t ah C ode A nn. § 76- 5- 401. 1, W y o. St at
. A nn. §§ 6- 2- 314, 6- 2- 315, 6- 2- 316, 6- 2- 317. E ven the Estr ada- E s pi noza cour tacknow l edged that“s exual ab u se of a mi nor ” i s “a comm on t i t l e for offe ns es unders t at e cr i m i nal codes

. ” 546 F. 3d at1156. S e e su p ra n o tes 6 a n d 7 a n d a c c o m p a n y in g tex t.

17 27 cov ers a broad assor t m ent of st atutes and cri m i nal act i vit i es. 16 Fi nal l y , w er e w e t o l i m i tt he def i ni t i on of s exual abus e of a mi nort o t he c o n d u ct p r os cr i bed i n § 2243, a hos tof m i s conduct crimi nal i zed bys t at e l aw w oul d notqual i fyas an a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n yu n d e r th e IN A . F o r in sta n c e , a n ysta te s tatu te t hatcr i m i nal i zes i nappr opr i at e t ouchi ng of a m i nort hr ough the cl ot hi ng i s bey ond t he s cope of § 2243, w hi ch r equi r es a “s exual act ” as defi ned i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 2246, and w hi ch does noti ncl ude tou ch ing thro u g h the c lothing

. F elon yco n v ict ion s u n d er a va r i e t yo f

s t a t e c r i mi n a l c o d e p r o v i s i o n s wou l d n o tq u a l i f yas aggr avat ed fe l oni es i f w e r el i ed on § 2243 for t he def i ni t i on of se x u a l a b u se o f

a m in o r. S u c h a re su lt w o u ld ru n c o u n ter to

1728 C ongr es s ’ cl eari nt entt o expand the s co p e o f act i vi t i es co n sti tut i ng an aggr avat ed fe l ony . T h e E str ad a-E sp ino za co u rt ’s d e f in iti o n o f se x u a l a b u se o f a m in o r d o e s n o t g iv e e f f e c t to th is l egi s l at i ve purpos e. W e n o te w ith in ter e st th a t th e N in th C irc u it rec e n tly r et r eat ed fr o m i t s p o s i t i o n i n Es t r a d a - E s pi noza. N otw i t hst and i ng i t s cert ai nty i n E strada- E spi no za t hat C on gress “inten d ed the ‘ag g rav ated fe lon y ’ o f ‘sex u al ab u se o f a m ino r’ t o i ncorpor at e the def

i ni t i on of ‘s exual abus e of a m i nor ’ i n 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 3 ,” 5 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 5 2 n .2 , the N in th C irc u it s ubs equent l y expl ai ned thatE s t r ada- E s pi noza’ s “hol di ng w as i nt ende d to defi ne s t atut oryr ape l aw s onl y . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M ed ina-V il la, 5 6 7 F
. 3 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 5 (9th C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). F o r a ll o f th e se re a so n s, w e re

jec t th e a n a ly sis se t f

o rth in E s t r ada- E s pi noza.

2

. Appl yi ng the C at egor i cal

Appr oach T o compl et e the Tay l or anal y s i s , w e mustcompar e the d e f in iti o n o f a g g ra v a ted c rim in a l se x u a l co n tac t u n d e r N .J. S tat. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3( a) w i t h ourdefi ni t i on of s exual abus e of a m i nor . Sect i on 2C : 14- 3( a) pr ovi des t hat “[a ] n act ori s gui l t yof aggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont acti f he c o m m it s an ac tof s exual cont actw i th the vi ct i m underanyof the ci r cumst ance s s etfor t h i n 2C : 14- 2( a) ( 2) t hr ough ( 7)

. ” N
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3 ( a )

. I n Re s t r e p o ’ s c a s e , t h e s e x u a l c o n t a c tf o rwhi c h h e was c o n v icte d w a s th e in ten tio n a l to u c h in g o f h is da u g h ter ’s b re a stsN .J. S tat. A n n . § 2 C :1 4 -1 (d ) d e f in e s “ se x u a l co n tac t” 18 a s “ a n in ten tio n a l to u c h in g b y th e v ictim o r a c to r, eith e r d ire c tly ort hr ough cl ot hi ng, of t he vi ct i m ’ s oract or ’ s i nt i m at e part s for th e p u rp o se o f d e g ra d in g o r h u m ili a tin g th e v ictim o r se x u a lly ar ous i ng or s exual l y gr at i fy i ng t he act or . Sexual cont actof the act orw i t h hi m s el f m us tbe i n vi ew of t he vi ct i m w hom the ac t or k n o w s to b e p rese n t[. ]” T h e sta tu to r y d e f

in iti o n o f

th e o f f e n se is p h ra se d in 19 di s j unct i ve fo rm , and i ti s ther efor e appr opr i at e t o appl ythe mod i f i e d c a t e g o r i c a l a p p r o a c h

. Hen c e , we e x a mi n e t he c h a rg in g in stru m e n t, t o d e ter m in e w h ich s u b se c tio n s a p p lyto R es t r epo’ s convi ct i on. See Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at162. 29 a n d v a g in a th ro u g h h e r c lo th in g . T h e c irc u m sta n c e s s e t f o rth 18 i n § 2 C: 1 4

- 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) t h r o u g h ( 7 ) a r e p h r a s e d i n d i s j u n c t i v e f

o r m, and, t her efor e, w e musti dent i fy t he s peci fi c s ubs ect i on under w hi ch R estrep o w as convi ct ed. Si ngh, 383 F. 3d at162; s ee 19 al s o V al ans i , 278 F. 3d at 214. R es t r epo’ s char gi ng i ns t rum ent al l eges t hat he “di d comm i t act ( s ) of aggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont actupon L
. R
. , a chi l d of atl eas t( 13) but less tha n ( 16) y ear s , w i t h s ai d defe ndantbei ng r el at ed to L. R
. bybl ood or aff i ni t yt o t he t hi r d degr ee[

. ] ” H ence , t he ci r cumst ance s l i s t ed i n N
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 2( a) ( 2) , ( “The vi ct i m i s atl eas t13 but les s th a n 1 6 y e a rs o ld ” ), a n d (a )(2 )(a ), (“ T h e a c to r i s re late d to t he vi ct i m bybl ood oraff i ni t yt o t he thi r d degr ee” ) , ar e the r el evant ci r cumst ance s w i t h r es pect t o t he “ac t o f se x ual c o n t a c t ” t h a tl e d t o Re s t r e p o ’ s c o n v i c t i o n . Un d e rT a y l o r , we m us tnow det erm i ne w hetherconductthatcons t i tutes “s exual a bu s e of a mi no r ” i s ne c e s s a r yfo ra c on vi c t i on un de rt heseA s previ ou sl y dis cussed, w e hav e con cl ud ed that i t is 20 appr opr i at e t o defe rt o t he B I A ’ s defi n it ion of s exual abus e of a min o r, el uci dat ed i n R odr i guez- R odr i guez. T hus , l i ke the B I A , w e w i l l r el yon 18 U

. S. C

. § 3509 “as a gui de i n i dent i fy i ng t he t yp e s o f c r i me s we wou l d c o n s i d e r t o b e s e x u a l a b u s e of a m i nor . ” 22 I

. & N
. D ec. at996. 30 p r o v i s i o n s o f

Ne w J e r s e yl a w. Sect i on 3509( a) ( 8) pr ovi des that“the t erm ‘s exual 20 a b u se ’ in c lu d e s th e e m p lo ym e n t, us e , p e rsu a sio n , ind u c e m e n t, e n tice m e n t, or c o e rc io n o f a c h ild to e n g a g e in

. . . se x u a lly ex p li ci tconduct [. ] ” A ddi t i onal l y , § 3509( a) ( 9) defi nes “s exual l y expl i ci t conduct ” t o i ncl ude “s exual cont act [, ] ” w hi ch r efe r s t o “the i nt ent i onal t ouchi ng, ei t herdi r ect l yorthrou gh cl ot hi n g , of the geni t al i a, anus , gr oi n, br eas t , i nnerthi gh, or bu t t ock s of any person w i t h an i ntentt o ab use, hu m i l i at e, harass , d eg rad e, or a rou se o r gra ti fysex u al de sir e o f a n yp erso n [.]” Cons i de r i ng t he br e a dth o f c on du c te nc ompa s s e d b ythese pr ovi s i ons , i ti s pl ai n th atan i ndi vi dual convi ct ed of “ aggr avat ed cr i m i nal s exual cont act ” under N
. J
. St at
. A nn. § 2C : 14- 3( a) has nece s s ar i l yengaged i n an ac tw i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of “s exual ab u se o f a m ino r” p rov ided b y§ 3 5 0 9

. T h e re f o re, R estrep o ’s c o n v ic tio n f

a lls w ith in th e a m b it o f

“ s e x u a l a b u s e o f

a m in o r,” w h ich c o n sti tutes an ag g rav ated fe lon yu n d er § 1 1 0 1 (a)(43 ). A s pr evi ous l ynot ed, s upr a Par tI I , w e ar e w i t hout j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew an or dert o r emove an al i en w ho co m m itted an ag g rav ated fe lon y . S ee 8 U
. S

. C

. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(C ). I n l i ghtof our concl us i on t hat R es t r epo’ s convi ct i on qual i fi es as a c o n v ictio n f

o r a n a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n y , w e lac k ju r is d ictio n toSect i on 1229( d) pr ovi des for e xpedi t i ous 21 comm ence m entof r emoval pr ocee di ngs , buti tal s o s t at es t hat “[n] ot hi ng in this s ubs ect i on s hal l be cons t rued t o cr eat e any s u b s ta n tiv e o r p ro c e d u ra l rig h t o r b e n e f it th a t is leg a lly e n f o rc e a b le b ya n yp a rtya g a in st th e U n ited S tate s o r its ag en cies o r of

fice rs or a n yo ther p erso n . ” § 1 2 2 9 (d)(2 ).

31 re v iew th e B IA ’s o rd e r, an d w e w ill n o t d istu rb it. B
. A r e the Rem oval

P r ocee di ngs Ti m e- B ar r ed? R e stre p o in v o k e s 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 6 2 , a fe d e ra l “c a tch -a ll” s t atut e of l i m it ati ons , t o ar gue thatthe r emoval pr ocee di ng i ni t i at ed ag ainsthi m i n 2004 w as unt i m el y . Sect i on 2462 pr ovi des t hat pr ocee di ngs fort he enf or cementof “a nyci vi l fi ne, penal t y , orfor fei tur e” mustbe comm ence d no l at ert han fi ve y ears from t he d at e w hen t he cl ai m accrued, excep tas ot herw i se provided b yl aw . R estrepo co ntends that depo rt at i on i s a for fei tur e and/ ora penal t y , and he as s ert s t hatt he r emoval act i on agai ns thi m

— w hi ch w as i ni t i at ed appr oxi m at el yt en y ear s aft er hi s convi ct i on— i s t i m e- barr ed. T he B I A r ej ect ed R es t r epo’ s ar gum ent , concl udi ng that r emo v al i s nota ci vi l penal t yorfor fei tur e. I tal s o not ed that u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (d ), R e stre p o h a d “ n o leg a llye n f o rc e a b le r i ghtt o have r emoval pr o ce ed ings comm ence d w i t hi n any s peci fi c t i m e fr ame aft erthe dat e of the convi ct i on r ender i ng [ h im ] re m o v a b le.” F o r th e se re a s o n s, th e B IA d e c lin e d to 21 appl y§ 2462’ s “ca t ch- al l ” st atut e of l i m i t at i ons t o t he r emoval pr ocee d i n g s a g a i n s tR es t r epo. D es pi t e ourdi s comfi tur e w i t h t he p rolo n g ed d elayin init iat ion o f re m o v al pro ce ed ing s, w e a re32 c o mp e l l e d t o c o n c u ri n th e c o n c l u s i o n s o f th e BI A. A t the o ut s et , w e not e thatthe r ecor d i s devoi d of any re a so n a b le e x p la n a tio n f o r U S IC E ’s f

a ilu re to in iti a te pr ocee di ngs agai ns tR es t r epo unt i l t en y ear s af t e rhi s convi ct i on, and ei ght y ear s aft er t he defi ni t i on of “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” w as a m e n d e d to in c lu d e se x u a l ab u se o f a m in o r. W e f

in d th is e n f o r c e m e n th i s t o r yt r o u b l i n g , a n d i tb e g s th e q u e s t i o n wh i c h we p o se d to th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l at o ra l ar g u m e n t, i n e ss e n c e : is it notappr opr i at e t o i m pos e s om e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons governi ng t he per i od w i t hi n w hi ch t he U SI C E m ay pr os ecut e t he r emoval o f a lien s c o n v ic te d o f

a g g ra v a ted f

e lo n ies ? O u r in q u iryis rh e t ori cal , ho w ever, i n thatt he st atute i m po ses no t i me cons t r ai nt s on s uch pr ocee di ngs , an d the t as k of cr eat i ng a l i m i t at i ons per i od l i es w i t h the l egi s l atur e, nott he j udi ci ary . See, e. g. , Lo n c h a rv . Th o ma s , 5 1 7 U. S. 3 1 4 , 3 2 8 ( 1 9 96) ( comm ent i ng on t he “i ns t i tut i onal i nappr opr i at enes s ” of maki ng pol i cy“thr ough an ad hoc j udi ci al exce pt i on, r atherthan thr ough congr es s i onal l egi s l at i on orthr ough t he form al rul emaki ng p ro c e s s ” ); s e e a ls o R o th e n s ie s v . E le c tr ic S to ra g e B a tte ry C o ., 329 U

. S. 296, 303 ( 1946) ( not i ng t hat “i ti s forC ongr es s r ather than fo r th e c o u rt s to c rea te an d li m it ” e x ce p ti o n s to statutory lim itatio n s p e rio d s). S e c tio n 1 2 2 9 d ire c ts th e g o v e rn m e n t to
“ b e g in a n yre m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a s e x p e d iti o u slya s p o ss ib le aft erthe d at e of c onvi ct i on[, ] ” § 1229( d) ( 1) , buti ti m pos es no tim e lim itatio n u p o n g o v e rn m e n t ac ti o n , a n d it sp e c if ica lly dis cl ai m s the creat i on of an yenfo rceabl e ri gh t s. R es t r epo’ s § 2462 ar gum entr el i es upon a quot at i on fr om t he 1948 S upr eme C our tcas e of Fong H aw T an v. Phel an, 333 U
. S. 6, 10 ( 194 8) : “[Rem oval ] i s the for fei tur e form i s conduct o f a re s id e n c e in th is c o u n tr y . S u c h a f o rf e itu re is a p e n a lty.”I n Fo n g Haw T a n , t h e Cou r t was me r e l y n o t i n g t hat 22 depor t at i on i s a “dr as t i c meas ur e” w i t h “cons i der abl e” cons equenc es fort he al i en. I d. Fong H aw T an addr es s ed the circu m s t ance s underw hi ch an a l i en w as cons i der ed t o be “se n tenc ed m o re than o n ce [,]” an d there b y rem o v ab le, u n d er a law w h ich h as sin ce b ee n rep ea led. Id

. a t 7 -8. T h e C o u rt re m a rk e d o n th e h a rsh c o n se q u e n c e s o f d e p o rta tio n in o rd e r to j us t i fy a nar r ow cons t ruct i on of t he l anguage at i s s ue. I d. at10. C ons equent l y , t he quot ed l anguage does notcontr o l the ques t i on of w hether R es t r epo’ s r emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e unt i m el yunder § 2462. For i ns t ance , i n I N S v. L opez- M endoza , 468 U

. S. 1032

23 ( 1984) , J us t i ce O ’ C onnorw r ot e th a t“ [ a ] depor t at i on pr ocee di ng i s . . . not[i nt ended] t o puni s h an unl aw ful entr y [. ] ” I d. at1038. D e c a d e s e a rlier , C h ief

Ju stic e T a f

t s im il a rlysta ted th a t “[ i]t is w el l s et t l ed thatdeport at i on, w hil e itm aybe bur dens om e and s ever e fort he al i en, i s nota puni s hm en t. ” M ahl erv. E by , 264 U
. S. 32, 39 ( 1924)

. J udges of thi s C our thave al s o expl ai ned t hat“deport at i on s t atut es ar e notpenal i n nat ur e. ” B ufal i no v. IN S , 4 7 3 F .2 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 3 ) ( A d a m s , C

. J ., co n cu rri n g ). 33 R e stre p o ’s r e lian c e o n th is s tate m e n t is m isp lac e d , b e c a u se it does notaddr es s t he ques t i on of w hetherr emoval proc eedi ngs q u a l i f y a s a f o r f e i tu r e o ra p e n a l t y f

orpur pos es of § 2462 , and

22 beca us e i ti s s quar el yr efut ed bya hos tof cas es fr om t he S up rem e C ou rtand t his C ou rt , ho l ding t hat r em ov al i s nota penal t y . T hus , w e conc l ude that§ 2462’ s fi ve- y ears t atut e of

23 l i m i t at i on s does no tapp l yt o rem ov al proceed i ng s.34 I V. Fort he r eas ons expl ai ned above , w e w i l l denyt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.