N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANJUM NAWAZ KHAN,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71530 Age n c y No. A075-827-533
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

April 3, 2020 * * Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, N.R . SM ITH, a

n d NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Anjum Na wz Kha n pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a l s (“ B IA” ), holding tha t Kha n wa s re m ova

ble unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1227(a )(2)(A)(iii) for c o m m itting a n a g gravate d fe lony

unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1101(a )(43). W e hav e jurisdic tion to de te rm ine whe the r a n offe nse is a

n 

# FIL ED APR 7 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).a ggrav a t e d fe lony unde r the Im

m igration a

n d Nationa l ity

Ac t. S e e Lope z-J ac uinde
v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1215, 1217 (9th C ir. 2010). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w. The De pa rtm e n t of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

issue d a Notic e to Appe ar, c ha

rging Kha n with re m ova

bility a s an a ggravate d fe lon ba se d on Kha n’ s c onvic tion of ra

pe in the se c ond de gre e , R e v ise d C ode of W a shington se c tion 9A.44.050(1). The B IA
c onc lude d tha

t a ll subse c tions of RC W

§ 9A.44.050(1) we re a

c a te g oric a l m a tc h to the g e ne ric c rim e of ra

p e . W e disa gre e . Subse c tions (c ), (d), an d (e ) of R C W § 9A.44.050(1) a

re ove rbroa d, be c a

use the y c an be c o m m itte d with c onse nt a

nd do not re quire tha

t a pe rson be “ ove rc om e by

forc e or fe a

r, or unde r othe r prohibitive
c onditions.” C

astro-Bae z v . Re no , 217 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th C ir. 2000) (de fining
c om m on la w ra pe ) (quoting B la c k’ s La

w Dic tiona

ry (6th e d.1990)); se e also State
v . Sode rquist , 816 P.2d 1264, 1267 (Wa sh. C t . App. 1991) (noting tha t subse c tion (c ) “ involve [s] a

vulne ra b le vic tim and a n a buse of trust” ). B e c a use R C W § 9A.44.050(1) is ove rbroa d, we m

ust ne xt de te rm ine whe the r the sta

tute is divisible
. Se e Lope z -Vale nc ia v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 863, 867- 68 (9th C ir. 2015). “ [I] ndivisible sta tute s m ay c o nta in m

ultiple , a l te rna t ive me ans of c om m i tting thec rim e , [whe re a s] only divisible sta

tute s c onta in m

u l tiple , a lte rna tive e le me nts of func tiona lly se pa rate c rim e s .” R e ndon v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1077, 1084-85 (9th C ir. 2014). W he the r the subse c tions of RC W § 9A.44.050(1)
2are e le m e nts or m e ans turns “ on whe the r a jury m ust una n i m ously a gre e on whic h of the [six] sta

tutory a lte rna tive s a

de fe nda nt c om m itte d to re turn a

c onvic tion.” Unite d State s v . Robinson , 869 F.3d 933, 938 (9th C ir. 2017). “ [A] sta tute is indivisible

if the jury

m ay disa g re e on the fa c t at issue y e t still c onvic t.” Lope z-Vale nc ia , 798 F.3d a

t 869 (quota

tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om itte d). He re , the W a shington Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla i ne d tha t the subse c tions of RC W § 9A.44.050(1) a

re “ a lte rnat ive m e a

ns,” and tha

t “ jury una nim ity a s to the m e ans by whic h [the de fe nda

nt] c om m itte d the ra

pe is not re q

u ire d.” State

v . Orte ga-Martine

z , 881 P.2d 231, 233 (W a sh. 1994). In Robinson , we ana ly z e d a nothe r W a shington sta

tute , R C W

§ 9A.36.021. R e ly i ng on the W a shington Supre m e C ourt’ s c onc l usion tha t the subse c tions we re

“ a l te rnative m e ans,” w e he ld tha t the sta tute wa s indivisible , be c a u se jury
una nim ity wa s not re quire d. 869 F.3d a t 939-41. The issue pre se nte d in the pre s e nt c a se is indistinguisha ble from Robinson . R C W § 9A.44.050(1) a llows prose c utors to a lle ge m ore tha n one “ a lte rna tive m e ans” of c om m i tting ra pe in the
se c o nd de gre e , a

nd a jury ne e d not a gre e on the m e an s of c om m itting the

ra pe . Se e Orte ga-Martine

z , 881 P.2d a

t 234-35. Ac c ordingly , Kha n’ s c onvic tion unde r

3R C W § 9A.44.050(1) doe s not c a te goric a lly satisfy the de finition of a

n a ggravat e d fe lony
. 1 PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D and RE M ANDE D .

1 B e c a use we grant the pe tition, wene e d not re a c h Kha n’ s a dditiona l argum e nts ra ise d on a

ppe a l. 4