Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Jose Cornelio LAZALDE-ZUNIGA, AKA Jose Cornelio Lasalde-Zuniga, AKA Jose Zuniga-Lazalde, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Jose Cornelio Lazalde-Zuniga (“Lazalde-Zuniga”) petitions for review of the denial by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) (collectively, the “Agency”) of his application under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) for cancellation of removal. The Agency denied his application upon a determination that he was removable, because his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-1405(A) was a categorical match to “a crime of child abuse” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
The BIA has interpreted “a crime of child abuse” to mean “any offense involving an intentional, knowing, reckless, or criminally negligent act or omission that constitutes maltreatment of a child or that impairs a child’s physical or mental well-being, including sexual abuse or exploitation.” In re Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. 503, 512 (BIA 2008).
The mens rea required under A.R.S. § 13-1405(A) meets the mens rea requirement of the federal definition, because the Arizona statute prohibits “intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with” a minor.
A.R.S. § 13-1405(A) also meets the actus reus requirement of the federal definition. The Arizona statute prohibits “sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person who is under eighteen years of age,” A.R.S. § 13-1405(A), which “constitutes maltreatment of a child” and “impairs a child’s ․ mental well-being.” In re Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 512; see also Jimenez-Juarez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 1169, 1171 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2011).
The Arizona statute is therefore a categorical match to the federal crime of child abuse. Neither the BIA’s definition, nor our case law requires knowledge of the age of the victim. See Jimenez-Juarez, 635 F.3d at 1171; In re Velazquez-Herrera, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 512.
Lazalde-Zuniga’s arguments concerning “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) and “a crime involving moral turpitude” under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) are irrelevant to whether Lazalde-Zuniga’s conviction is a match to the less stringent definition of “a crime of child abuse” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). See, e.g., United States v. Martinez, 786 F.3d 1227, 1232–33 (9th Cir. 2015).
Petition DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-70328
Decided: June 15, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)