Bedolla-Zarate v. Sessions
892 F.3d 1137
10th Cir.2018Background
- Petitioner Azael Bedolla-Zarate, a Mexican national brought to the U.S. as a child and protected under DACA, was convicted in Wyoming (Sept. 2016) of third-degree sexual abuse of a minor under Wyo. Stat. § 6-2-316(a)(i).
- DHS issued a Final Administrative Removal Order (FARO) in April–May 2017, initiating expedited removal on the ground that the state conviction is an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
- FAROs authorize expedited removal without an immigration judge when an alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony; sexual abuse of a minor is listed as an aggravated felony in the INA.
- Bedolla-Zarate challenged the FARO arguing (1) he was not properly “convicted” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A) and (2) the Wyoming statute does not categorically match the INA’s generic offense of sexual abuse of a minor because it lacks (a) a mens rea as to victim age and (b) an "actual abuse"/seriousness element.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, found the state judgment established a guilty plea under the INA definition of conviction, and applied the categorical approach to determine whether the Wyoming offense fits the INA’s definition of sexual abuse of a minor.
- The court concluded the Wyoming statute categorically matches the INA generic offense: neither the federal generic definition nor the Wyoming statute requires knowledge of the victim’s age, and the petitioner failed to show the generic offense requires an additional "actual abuse" element beyond the proscribed sexual contact with a minor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was "convicted" under INA § 1101(a)(48)(A) | Bedolla-Zarate: judgment language ambiguous; no clear guilty plea | DHS: judgment and sentence show plea and punishment meeting § 1101(a)(48)(A) | Held: Judgment shows guilty plea and punishment; petitioner is "convicted" |
| Whether Wyoming § 6-2-316(a)(i) is an aggravated felony under INA § 1101(a)(43)(A) (categorical approach) | Bedolla-Zarate: statute is broader than INA generic offense; lacks knowledge mens rea as to age and lacks "actual abuse" element | DHS: generic federal offense does not require knowledge of victim age; statute criminalizes the proscribed sexual contact with a minor | Held: Wyoming statute categorically fits the INA generic sexual-abuse-of-a-minor offense; FARO proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Napolitano, 700 F.3d 1238 (10th Cir. 2012) (FARO statutory framework and aggravated-felony removability)
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013) (use of the categorical approach to compare state statutes to generic federal offenses)
- Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016) (modified categorical approach and indivisible vs divisible statutes)
- Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) (defining "sexual abuse of a minor" by reference to federal statutes and state codes; guidance on age/consent issues)
- Rangel-Perez v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 591 (10th Cir. 2016) (holding federal sexual-abuse statutes require that defendant knowingly commit proscribed sexual acts but not knowledge of victim's age)
- Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 573 (10th Cir. 2017) (government's burden to prove prior conviction by clear and convincing evidence)
- In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 872 F.3d 1094 (10th Cir. 2017) (refusing to consider inadequately briefed arguments)