Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions
198 L. Ed. 2d 22, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3551, 137 S.Ct. 1562 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a state statutory rape conviction to qualify as the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the state statute must criminalize sexual conduct with a victim under the age of 16. A conviction under a state statute with an age of consent of 16 or older does not categorically fit the generic federal definition of this offense when the crime is based solely on the ages of the participants.
Facts:
- Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a citizen of Mexico, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2000.
- In 2009, Esquivel-Quintana was convicted under California Penal Code § 261.5(c).
- The California statute under which he was convicted criminalizes consensual “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator.”
- For the purposes of this statute, California defines a “minor” as any person under the age of 18.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Juan Esquivel-Quintana in immigration court.
- An Immigration Judge (the court of first instance) found that Esquivel-Quintana's conviction constituted an aggravated felony and ordered him removed to Mexico.
- Esquivel-Quintana appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
- The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the Immigration Judge's decision.
- Esquivel-Quintana (petitioner) filed a petition for review of the BIA's decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition for review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction under a state statutory rape law, which criminalizes consensual sexual intercourse with a person under 18, categorically qualify as “sexual abuse of a minor” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus constituting an aggravated felony for removal purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No. A conviction under a state statutory rape law that criminalizes consensual sexual intercourse with a victim who is 16 or 17 years old does not categorically qualify as “sexual abuse of a minor” under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court employs the categorical approach, which requires looking at the elements of the state statute of conviction, not the specific facts of the crime. Under this approach, the Court must determine the generic, uniform federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor,” as the INA does not define the term. To do so, the Court examines ordinary meaning, statutory context, related federal statutes, and a survey of state laws from 1996, when the provision was added to the INA. This analysis reveals that the generic age of consent is 16. A majority of states set the age of consent at 16, and a related federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2243, also established 16 as the relevant age. Because the California statute criminalizes conduct with victims up to age 17, it is overbroad and punishes conduct that does not fall within the generic federal definition of “sexual abuse of a minor.” Therefore, a conviction under this California law is not an aggravated felony for immigration purposes.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of state convictions that can be classified as the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” for immigration purposes. By establishing a clear, generic federal age of consent at 16 for statutory rape offenses based solely on age, the Court limits the government's ability to seek removal for a wider range of convictions from states with higher ages of consent. The ruling reinforces the primacy of the categorical approach, preventing immigration authorities from examining the specific facts of an offense and instead forcing them to rely on a strict comparison between the state statute and a uniform federal standard. This provides greater predictability for noncitizens and constrains prosecutorial discretion in removal proceedings.
