Court Opinion

ID: 9498170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:09:55.010749+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:39.688434
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
In my view, Washington Revised Code § 9.68A.090 categorically prohibited sexual *1045abuse of a minor within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A). That is, in my opinion, the Washington courts have placed a sufficiently narrowing construction on what might otherwise have been an overbroad statute for our purposes. See State v. McNallie, 120 Wash.2d 925, 846 P.2d 1358, 1364 (1993); State v. Wissing, 66 Wash.App. 745, 833 P.2d 424, 429 (1992); State v. Luther, 65 Wash.App. 424, 830 P.2d 674, 675-76 (1992).
In addition, because, as the above cases indicate, Washington law requires that communication be for the purpose of actually involving a child in sexual misconduct, I do not believe that giving information about an abortion, unlawful or not, or making pornographic photography visible to the public, or allowing entry to an erotic performance business comes' within the meaning of communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
Thus, I do not agree with parts II A and B of the majority opinion, and dissent in that respect. However, I do concur in the remainder of the opinion and in the result.
Therefore, with the exception noted, I concur in the excellent majority opinion.