Opinion ID: 4579137
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The victim is a pupil at least 18 but less than

Text: 22 years old and has not received a high school diploma and the actor is a teaching staff member or substitute teacher, school bus driver, other school employee, contracted service provider, or volunteer and the actor has supervisory or disciplinary power of any nature or in any capacity over the victim. As used in this paragraph, “teaching staff member” has the meaning set forth in N.J.S.18A:1-1. 11 need to be found unanimously beyond a reasonable doubt” by a trial jury). When a crime has multiple alternate elements, we apply a “modified categorical approach,” under which we may examine “a limited set of documents to see which of the alternatives served as the basis for the individual’s conviction.” Id. at 338 (citing Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. 254, 269-70 (2013); Mathis, 136 S. Ct. at 2249). Among the documents we may consider in making this assessment is the charging instrument, although in looking at this instrument, we remain focused on the elements, not the facts, of the crime. See United States v. Brown, 765 F.3d 185, 189-90 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Descamps, 570 U.S. at 263), as amended (Nov. 4, 2014). Grijalva Martinez’s indictment alleged that he committed criminal sexual contact against a victim who was at least 13 but less than 16 years old while he was at least four years older than her, allegations that align with the offense set forth at N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(4). 6 We will therefore compare the elements of the offense set forth at N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:14-3(b) and 2C:14-2(c)(4) with those of the federal generic offense. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:14-3(b) and 2C:14-2(c)(4) criminalize engaging in “sexual contact” with a victim, § 2C:14-3(b), when “[t]he victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old and the [defendant] is at least four years older than the victim,” § 2C:14-2(c)(4). This offense has two components: a knowing act and the ages of the victim and defendant. The act is “sexual 6 The BIA also found that § 2C:14-2(c)(4) was the basis for Grijalva Martinez’s conviction, and he does not challenge this conclusion in his petition for review. 12 contact.” Sexual contact is defined under New Jersey law as “an intentional touching by the victim or actor, either directly or through clothing, of the victim’s or actor’s intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor,” which is performed “in view of the victim whom the actor knows to be present.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-1(d). Section 3509(a) “defines ‘sexually explicit conduct’ to include ‘sexual contact[,]’ which refers to ‘the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify sexual desire of any person.’” Restrepo, 617 F.3d at 800 (alteration in original). As we observed in Restrepo, the “breadth of conduct encompassed by these provisions” makes “plain that” 7 the conduct described in New Jersey’s definition of the term “sexual contact” also captures the conduct the federal generic offense prohibits. 8 Id. 7 In Restrepo, we rejected an attempt to define the federal generic definition of “sexual contact” more narrowly, given that a narrower definition would improperly exclude numerous state definitions of sexual contact, including that of New Jersey. 617 F.3d at 795 & n.7; see also EsquivelQuintana, 137 S. Ct. at 1571 (holding that courts may “look to state criminal codes for additional evidence about the generic meaning of sexual abuse of a minor”). 8 The petitioner in Restrepo was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual contact in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2C:14-3(a) and 2C:14-2(a)(2)(a), an offense that criminalizes engaging in “sexual contact” with a victim, § 2C:14-3(a), when “[t]he victim is at least 13 but less than 16 years old,” § 2C:14-2(a)(2), and the defendant “is related to the victim by blood or affinity to the third degree,” § 2C:14- 13 Turning to the age component, both the federal generic offense and the New Jersey statute make it a crime to engage in the prohibited acts with individuals who are at least 13 but less than 16. See Esquivel-Quintana, 137 S. Ct. at 1568 (“[T]he generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires that the victim be younger than 16.”); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(4) (covering criminal sexual contact with a victim who is least 13 but less than 16, and four years younger than the defendant). Neither the federal generic offense nor the New Jersey law requires the government to prove that the defendant knew the age of the victim. Rather, a defendant can be convicted of criminal sexual contact even if he did not know, and even if he could not reasonably have known, that the victim was underage. See 18 U.S.C. § 2243(d) (providing that in a prosecution for sexual abuse of a minor, “the Government need not prove that the defendant knew . . . the age of the other person engaging in the sexual act”); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-5(c) (“It shall be no defense to a prosecution for a crime under this chapter that the actor believed the victim to be above the age stated for the offense, even if such a mistaken 2(a)(2)(a). See 617 F.3d at 789, 800. Applying the modified categorical approach, we held that this crime was a match for sexual abuse of a minor under the INA. Id. at 800. The only difference between the elements of Grijalva Martinez’s conviction and those of the conviction of the petitioner in Restrepo is the age of the defendant and the relation that he bears to the victim. Compare N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14- 2(a)(2)(a), with N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-2(c)(4). For the purposes of applying the categorical approach and examining the conduct captured by the act of criminal sexual contact, the statutes here and in Restrepo are not materially different. 14 belief was reasonable.”). 9 Thus, because a knowing criminal sexual act involving a victim of a particular age, whose age may not be known to the perpetrator, is an element of both the federal generic offense and the New Jersey criminal sexual contact offense, the two are a categorical match. Because a crime that fits under the federal generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor is an aggravated felony, and because Grijalva Martinez’s crime of conviction matches the definition of the federal generic offense, the BIA correctly concluded that Grijalva Martinez’s conviction constitutes an aggravated felony that renders him removable. 9 See also State v. Perez, 832 A.2d 303, 312 (N.J. 2003) (noting that the “standard in respect of a victim’s age” under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14 is “only objective proof that the alleged victim was a child under the age of [consent], not that the accused knew or reasonably should have known that fact”); State v. Saponaro, No. A-0741-15T3, 2017 WL 2348869, at  (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2017) (“We have long held that a mistaken belief as to the age of a victim in an age-based sexual crime is not a defense. . . . ‘The crime has been defined by the Legislature in terms which negate any element of criminal intent on the part of the actor.’ . . . Our Legislature recognized that children should be protected—without regard to a perpetrator’s knowledge of the minor’s age—from sexual assaults. . . .” (quoting State v. Moore, 253 A.2d 579, 581 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1969))); NJ J.I. CRIM §§ 2C:14-3b, 2C:14-2(c)(4) (model jury instructions). 15 III 10 Grijalva Martinez contends that he is entitled to withholding of removal because he was not convicted of a particularly serious crime. Under the INA, “the Attorney General may not remove an alien to a country if the Attorney General decides that the alien’s life or freedom would be threatened in that country because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). However, “withholding of removal is unavailable if [an] alien committed a ‘particularly serious crime’ because, in such a case, the alien is considered a ‘danger to the community of the United States.’” Flores v. Att’y Gen., 856 F.3d 280, 285 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)). Grijalva Martinez asserts that he is not subject to the particularly serious crime bar because only aggravated felonies can be particularly serious crimes and he was not convicted of an aggravated felony. Grijalva Martinez is wrong for three reasons. First, as just explained, Grijalva Martinez was indeed 10 We have jurisdiction to review Grijalva Martinez’s withholding-of-removal claim because it raises a question of “[w]hether an IJ applied the correct legal standard.” Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2019) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also § 1252(a)(2)(D); Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 135 (3d Cir. 2019). We review the agency’s classifications of particularly serious crimes “de novo, subject to Chevron principles of deference.” Denis v. Att’y Gen. 633 F.3d 201, 205-06 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 251 (3d Cir. 2019). 16 convicted of an aggravated felony, and he is therefore statutorily precluded from applying for withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B). Second, even if Grijalva Martinez had not been convicted of an aggravated felony, offenses that are not aggravated felonies can be particularly serious crimes. See Bastardo-Vale v. Att’y Gen., 934 F.3d 255, 266-67 (3d Cir. 2019) (en banc) (holding that “both aggravated felonies and other offenses can be particularly serious crimes,” given that “aggravated felonies [are only one] subset of particularly serious crimes”). Third, even if Grijalva Martinez’s offense does not qualify as an aggravated felony, the IJ did not err in concluding that Grijalva Martinez was convicted of a particularly serious crime. An IJ has “broad discretion” to determine whether a prior conviction is a particularly serious crime, Nkomo v. Att’y Gen., 930 F.3d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 2019), through a “case-bycase adjudication,” Denis v. Att’y Gen., 633 F.3d 201, 214 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bastardo-Vale, 934 F.3d at 262. In making this determination, the IJ may consider “such factors as [1] the nature of the conviction, [2] the circumstances and underlying facts of the conviction, [3] the type of sentence imposed, and, most importantly, [4] whether the type and circumstances of the crime indicate that the alien will be a danger to the community.” Luziga v. Att’y Gen., 937 F.3d 244, 252 (3d Cir. 2019) (alterations in original) (quoting Matter of Frentescu, 18