Opinion ID: 35407
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sexual Battery as a Crime of Violence

Text: 6 Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-546 (IIRIRA), this court retains jurisdiction to review jurisdictional facts. Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5th Cir.2000). Specifically, this court always has jurisdiction to determine whether the petitioner is an alien who is deportable for committing an offense that bars this court's review. Smalley v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 332, 335 (5th Cir.2003) (citing Nehme, 252 F.3d at 420). 7 Thus, this court must consider whether Zaidi's conviction for sexual battery under Oklahoma law constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). The term aggravated felony is defined for the purposes of the immigration statutes in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and includes a variety of offenses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) (2000). Zaidi first argues that he cannot be removed from the United States because the original federal charging documents indicated that he had committed a specified aggravated felony within the definition contained in § 1101(a)(43)(A), which encompasses murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) (2000). 8 This argument is without merit. This court has held that [w]hat the [government] originally charged is of no consequence; so long as the alien in fact is removable for committing an aggravated felony, this court has no jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the [government] originally sought removal for that reason. Lopez-Elias, 209 F.3d at 793 (emphasis added). 2 In addition, in this case, the final order requiring Zaidi to be deported contains a factual finding made by the deporting officer that Zaidi had a final conviction for an aggravated felony as defined by section 101(a)(43) of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act, 8 U.S.C. [§] 1101(a)(43).... This finding does not specify which subsection of § 1101(a)(43) Zaidi was found to have violated. Thus, the court must determine whether Zaidi's prior conviction falls within any of the specific definitions contained in § 1103(a)(43). 9 The definition of aggravated felony contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(43) includes a crime of violence (as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code, but not including a purely political offense) for which the term of imprisonment [is] at least one year. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F) (2000). Title 18 of the U.S.Code, in turn, defines a crime of violence as: 10 (a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or 11 (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. 12 18 U.S.C. § 16 (2000). 13 To determine whether an alien has committed an aggravated felony that renders him deportable, courts apply the categorical approach and look primarily to the text of the statute violated. Lopez-Elias, 209 F.3d at 791; see also United States v. Allen, 282 F.3d 339, 343 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Landeros-Gonzales, 262 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir.2001). At the time of Zaidi's conviction, Oklahoma law provided that: 14 No person shall commit sexual battery on any other person. Sexual battery shall mean the intentional touching, mauling or feeling of the body or private parts of any person sixteen (16) years of age or older, in a lewd and lascivious manner and without the consent of that other person.... 15 OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 21, § 1123(B) (WEST 2002). 3 16 Zaidi's principal argument is that this statute may be violated in a variety of ways, including through the intentional, but nonviolent, physical touching of another, so long as the touching is lewd and lascivious. Specifically, Zaidi points to the facts of his case, which, he suggests, indicate that while he inappropriately touched the women without their consent, he did not use any destructive or violent force in doing so. As a result, Zaidi argues that while his conduct was criminal and deserving of punishment under Oklahoma law, it should not be considered a crime of violence sufficient to serve as a predicate offense for his deportation. The government, for its part, argues that Zaidi's conviction comes within both definitions of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16 because the Oklahoma offense of sexual battery has as an element the use ... of physical force against the person... of another and because a violation of the statute, by its nature, also presents a substantial risk that physical force against the person ... of another may be used in the course of committing the offense. 17 The Tenth Circuit recently held that the Oklahoma sexual battery statute may serve as a predicate offense for the crime of violence enhancement contained in Section 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See United States v. Rowland, 357 F.3d 1193, 1195-98 (10th Cir.2004). In that case, the Tenth Circuit held that sexual battery, by its nature, presents a serious potential risk of injury to another. Id. at 1198. In this case we confront a different standard — whether the offense of sexual battery under Oklahoma law creates a substantial risk that physical force may be used against another. 4 We have little difficulty in concluding that it does. 18 In Rowland, the Tenth Circuit noted that a conviction under the Oklahoma statute presupposes the intentional sexual touching of another with a particular mental state and without consent and held that such a touching represents a particular subset of battery. Id. at 1197 (quoting OKLA. STAT. ANN. TIT. 21, § 642). Further, [b]ecause the statute at issue here presupposes a lack of consent, it necessarily carries with it a risk of physical force. Id. By analogy, we believe that the risk that physical force will be used to complete the offense of sexual battery is substantial. See also Sutherland v. Reno, 228 F.3d 171, 176 (2nd Cir.2000) (indecent assault and battery under Massachusetts law qualified as a crime of violence because any violation of [the Massachusetts statute], by its nature, presents a substantial risk that force may be used to overcome the victim's lack of consent and accomplish the indecent touching) (emphasis in original). In holding that sexual battery through deception under Ohio law is a crime of violence, the Sixth Circuit expressed a similar view, noting that such an offense carries with it the ever-present possibility that the victim may figure out what's really going on and decide to resist, in turn requiring the perpetrator to resort to actual physical restraint. See United States v. Mack, 53 F.3d 126, 128 (6th Cir.1995). In all such cases, the non-consent of the victim is the touchstone for determining whether a given offense involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the commission of the offense. Sutherland, 228 F.3d at 177. 19 Because the Oklahoma offense of sexual battery is a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), Zaidi's offense qualifies as a crime of violence within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(43) and an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). 5 Under the last-cited statute, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal issued by the Department of Homeland Security. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) (2000). 20 The petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.