United States v. Faustino Gomez , 732 F.3d 971 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                No. 11-30262
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    D.C. No.
    v.                      2:11-cr-06004-
    LRS-1
    FAUSTINO GOMEZ,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    OPINION
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Washington
    Lonny R. Suko, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    February 4, 2013—Seattle, Washington
    Filed October 7, 2013
    Before: Raymond C. Fisher, Ronald M. Gould,
    and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Paez
    2                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    SUMMARY*
    Criminal Law
    The panel affirmed an illegal reentry conviction, vacated
    the sentence, and remanded for resentencing in a case in
    which the defendant argued that his underlying removal was
    invalid.
    The panel held that the removal was invalid for two
    independent reasons: (1) the stipulated removal proceeding
    violated the defendant’s right to due process because he was
    denied his right to appeal the removal order, and (2) the
    immigration judge violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding
    the defendant’s waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and
    intelligent” on the basis of an insufficient record. The panel
    nonetheless affirmed the conviction because the violations
    were harmless given that the defendant was ineligible for
    voluntary departure at the time of the removal proceeding.
    The panel held that the defendant’s prior conviction for
    sexual conduct with a minor under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405
    did not constitute a “crime of violence” within the meaning
    of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The panel held that § 13-
    1405, including the version for offenses against victims
    “under fifteen,” does not categorically meet the generic
    definition of “sexual abuse of a minor” or of “statutory rape,”
    and that after Descamps v. United States, this court no longer
    analyzes a statute missing an element of a generic offense, as
    here, under the modified categorical approach.
    *
    This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has
    been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    3
    COUNSEL
    Rebecca L. Pennell (argued), Federal Defenders of Eastern
    Washington & Idaho, Yakima, Washington, for Defendant-
    Appellant.
    Alexander C. Ekstrom (argued), United States Attorney’s
    Office for the Eastern District of Washington, Yakima,
    Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    OPINION
    PAEZ, Circuit Judge:
    Faustino Gomez appeals the district court’s denial of his
    motion to dismiss the indictment charging him with illegal
    reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Gomez argues that his
    underlying 2006 removal was invalid because the stipulated
    removal proceeding violated his right to due process and
    denied him an opportunity to seek voluntary departure. We
    hold that the removal was invalid for two independent
    reasons: (1) the stipulated removal proceeding violated
    Gomez’s right to due process because he was denied his right
    to appeal the removal order, and (2) the Immigration Judge
    (“IJ”) violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding Gomez’s
    waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” on the
    basis of an insufficient record. Nonetheless, we affirm
    Gomez’s § 1326 conviction because the violations were
    harmless given that Gomez was ineligible for voluntary
    departure at the time of the 2006 proceeding.
    4                UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    Gomez also challenges the district court’s imposition of
    a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement. He argues that his
    2004 conviction for sexual conduct with a minor under
    Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405 does not constitute
    a “crime of violence” as defined by United States Sentencing
    Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). We
    agree. We hold that § 13-1405, including the version for
    offenses against victims “under fifteen,” does not
    categorically meet the generic definition of “sexual abuse of
    a minor” or of “statutory rape.” After Descamps v. United
    States, 
    133 S. Ct. 2276
     (2013), we no longer analyze a statute
    missing an element of a generic offense, as here, under the
    modified categorical approach. Thus, we vacate Gomez’s
    sentence and remand for resentencing.
    I. BACKGROUND
    A.
    In January 2004, Gomez was indicted on three counts of
    violating Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405 for sexual
    conduct with a minor who was under the age of fifteen.
    Count one charged Gomez with digitally penetrating the
    victim, and Counts two and three charged him with having
    sexual intercourse with her. In September 2004, Gomez
    signed a plea agreement, pleading guilty to two counts of
    “Attempted Sexual Conduct with a Minor Under the Age of
    15” in violation of § 13-1001 (attempt) and § 13-1405 (sexual
    conduct with a minor). In November 2004, Gomez was
    sentenced to a term of imprisonment, not to be released until
    January 16, 2006.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    5
    On January 17, 2006, the immigration authorities served
    Gomez, who was in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s
    (“ICE”) custody, with a Notice to Appear (“NTA”). Gomez
    signed and returned a “request for prompt hearing.” The
    NTA included the allegation that he had been convicted of the
    § 13-1405 offenses. ICE transferred Gomez to Eloy
    Detention Center where he received, on January 19, 2006, a
    revised NTA that omitted any reference to his past
    conviction. Gomez again signed a “request for prompt
    hearing.” While Gomez was in a cell with other aliens, an
    immigration official read to them en masse a Stipulated
    Removal form in Spanish. Gomez does not remember
    whether he had a copy of the form when it was read to the
    group. After the en masse reading, Gomez met individually
    with an immigration officer who told Gomez that he could be
    removed immediately if he signed the form. Gomez claims
    that during the individual meeting, “the form was not
    reviewed again, and [he] did not read the form.” The whole
    process lasted less than forty-five minutes. Gomez signed the
    preprinted form, which contained both English and Spanish
    statements waiving Gomez’s rights to counsel, ¶4, to a
    hearing before an IJ, ¶5, to any form of relief (including
    voluntary departure), ¶8, and to appeal, ¶13. Without a
    hearing, the IJ issued a two paragraph decision and order on
    January 20, 2006, finding Gomez’s uncounseled waiver of
    rights to be “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” Gomez
    was removed to Mexico via Nogales, Arizona that same day.
    B.
    On December 23, 2010, Gomez was arrested for driving
    under the influence of alcohol in Washington state. A day
    later, an ICE agent located Gomez in the Franklin County Jail
    in Washington. Gomez was indicted on January 11, 2011, for
    6                    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.1 Gomez
    moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the
    underlying stipulated removal proceeding was invalid. The
    district court denied the motion. A week later, Gomez filed
    a motion for reconsideration along with a declaration, stating,
    inter alia, that he had not understood the stipulated removal
    proceeding.2 Although the district court denied Gomez’s
    motion for reconsideration, the court characterized the
    validity of Gomez’s removal proceeding as “a close
    question.” Gomez entered a guilty plea, reserving his right to
    appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment.
    The probation officer prepared a pre-sentence report
    (“PSR”) and recommended a total offense level of twenty-
    two. The total offense level included a sixteen-level
    1
    8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) provides that “any alien who–(1) has been denied
    admission, excluded, deported, or removed . . . and thereafter (2) enters,
    attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States [barring
    some exceptions] . . . shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more
    than 2 years [subject to enhanced penalties under § 1326(b)], or both.”
    We have recognized that “the Illegal Immigration Reform and
    Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) amended the
    immigration statutes so as to eliminate the previous legal distinction
    between deportation, removal and exclusion, merging all of these
    proceedings into a broader category entitled ‘removal proceedings.’”
    United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 
    183 F.3d 933
    , 934 (9th Cir. 1999)
    (footnote omitted) (citing United States v. Pantin, 
    155 F.3d 91
    , 92 (2d Cir.
    1998)). We refer to Gomez’s “removal” proceedings, though we note that
    8 U.S.C. § 1326(d) and other cases we cite sometimes refer to
    “deportation” proceedings. “[A]ny distinction between deportation and
    removal is legally insignificant for purposes of § 1326.” Id. at 935.
    2
    According to the pre-sentence report prepared for sentencing, Gomez
    completed the sixth grade in Mexico and is able to read and write in
    Spanish, but unable to communicate in English.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                               7
    enhancement based on the probation officer’s determination
    that Gomez had been previously deported after being
    convicted of a “crime of violence” as defined by U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The PSR assigned Gomez six criminal
    history points, for a criminal history category of III, and a
    Guidelines sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three
    months imprisonment.           Without the sixteen-level
    enhancement, the sentencing range for Gomez would likely
    have been ten to sixteen months. See United States
    Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual, Sentencing
    Table (Nov. 1, 2010).3
    On September 8, 2011, the district court conducted a
    hearing on objections to the PSR. Gomez’s primary objection
    was to the sixteen-level sentencing enhancement for his 2004
    § 13-1405 conviction. Gomez argued that the conviction did
    not qualify as a “crime of violence” under the categorical or
    modified categorical approaches.
    On September 15, 2011, the district court conducted a
    sentencing hearing. The district court acknowledged the
    PSR’s recommended Guidelines sentencing range of fifty-one
    to sixty-three months, and found that Gomez’s § 13-1405
    conviction was “in fact categorically statutory rape,” which
    is a “crime of violence” under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The
    district court also conducted an alternative analysis, assuming
    that the generic definition of “statutory rape” included a four-
    year age differential, and found that Gomez satisfied this
    3
    The PSR used the 2010 United States Sentencing Commission
    Guidelines Manual. Pursuant to § 2L1.2(b)(1)(D), if Gomez’s Arizona
    conviction had not qualified as a crime of violence, his base offense level
    likely would have been increased by only four levels, rather than sixteen,
    yielding a total offense level of ten, rather than twenty-two.
    8                UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    element because the court could consider Gomez’s age at the
    time of the § 13-1405 conviction given that his date of birth
    appeared on the “judgement [sic] paperwork.” Finally, the
    district court noted several reasons for imposing a below-
    Guidelines sentence. It also noted that it would likely have
    given the same sentence even if it erred in applying the
    sixteen-level enhancement. The district court then imposed
    a sentence of twenty-two months imprisonment and three
    years of supervised release.
    II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We have jurisdiction to review a final judgment of the
    district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review de
    novo a claim that a defect in a prior removal proceeding
    precludes reliance on the final removal order in a subsequent
    § 1326 proceeding.” United States v. Reyes-Bonilla, 
    671 F.3d 1036
    , 1042 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 
    133 S. Ct. 322
    (2012). “We review the district court’s findings of fact for
    clear error. We may affirm a district court’s denial of a
    motion to dismiss an indictment on any basis supported by
    the record.” Id. (citation omitted).
    “We review de novo the district court’s interpretation of
    the Sentencing Guidelines,” United States v. Rodriguez-
    Ocampo, 
    664 F.3d 1275
    , 1277 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting
    United States v. Berger, 
    587 F.3d 1038
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2009))
    (internal quotation marks omitted), including a “district
    court’s determination that a prior conviction qualifies as a
    ‘crime of violence’ under the Guidelines,” United States v.
    Rodriguez-Guzman, 
    506 F.3d 738
    , 740–41 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (citing United States v. Rivera-Sanchez, 
    247 F.3d 905
    , 907
    (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc)).
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    9
    III. DISCUSSION
    A. Conviction
    When an alien defendant is prosecuted for illegal reentry
    under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, he may not collaterally attack the
    underlying deportation order “unless the alien demonstrates”
    that:
    (1) [he] exhausted any administrative
    remedies that may have been available to seek
    relief against the order; (2) the deportation
    proceedings at which the order was issued
    improperly deprived the alien of the
    opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the
    entry of the order was fundamentally unfair.
    8 U.S.C. § 1326(d); United States v. Gonzalez-Villalobos,
    No. 12-30150, 
    2013 WL 3854657
    , at *1, *3–5 (9th Cir.
    July 26, 2013).       “An underlying removal order is
    ‘fundamentally unfair’ if: ‘(1) [a defendant’s] due process
    rights were violated by defects in his underlying deportation
    proceeding, and (2) he suffered prejudice as a result of the
    defects.’” United States v. Ubaldo-Figueroa, 
    364 F.3d 1042
    ,
    1048 (9th Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (quoting United
    States v. Zarate-Martinez, 
    133 F.3d 1194
    , 1197 (9th Cir.
    1998)).
    A defendant can establish the first two prongs of
    § 1326(d) by showing that he was denied judicial review of
    his removal proceeding in violation of due process. See
    Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1043; Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d
    at 1049–50. Due process requires that
    10               UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    [W]here a determination made in an
    administrative proceeding is to play a critical
    role in the subsequent imposition of a criminal
    sanction, there must be some meaningful
    review of the administrative proceeding. This
    principle means at the very least that where
    the defects in an administrative proceeding
    foreclose judicial review of that proceeding,
    an alternative means of obtaining judicial
    review must be made available before the
    administrative order may be used to establish
    conclusively an element of a criminal offense.
    United States v. Mendoza-Lopez, 
    481 U.S. 828
    , 837–38
    (1987) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted); see also United
    States v. Lopez-Vasquez, 
    1 F.3d 751
    , 753 (9th Cir. 1993).
    A defendant can also satisfy the first two prongs of
    § 1326(d) by showing that immigration officials in the
    underlying removal proceeding violated a regulation designed
    to protect an alien’s right to judicial review. See United
    States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 
    655 F.3d 1077
    , 1084–85 (9th Cir.
    2011), cert. denied, 
    132 S. Ct. 1983
     (2012). “[T]he Supreme
    Court has ruled that when Congress enacts a procedure, aliens
    are entitled to it.” Id. (citing United States ex rel. Knauff v.
    Shaughnessy, 
    338 U.S. 537
    , 544 (1950) (“Whatever the
    procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far
    as an alien denied entry is concerned.”)); see also United
    States v. Ramos, 
    623 F.3d 672
    , 683 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It is a
    well-known maxim that agencies must comply with their own
    regulations.” (quoting Ramon-Sepulveda v. INS, 
    743 F.2d 1307
    , 1310 (9th Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                      11
    Once a due process or a qualifying regulatory violation
    has been established, we evaluate the third prong of § 1326(d)
    (that the deportation order was “fundamentally unfair”) as a
    “prejudice” inquiry. See Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1039
    (noting that we have long held that “a defendant seeking to
    exclude evidence of a prior removal order in a prosecution for
    illegal reentry” must demonstrate a due process violation and
    “‘bears the burden of proving prejudice.’” (quoting United
    States v. Proa-Tovar, 
    975 F.2d 592
    , 595 (9th Cir. 1992) (en
    banc) and citing 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(3))); see also United
    States v. Rangel-Gonzales, 
    617 F.2d 529
    , 530 (9th Cir. 1980)
    (explaining that for the purposes of a § 1326 prosecution we
    conduct a two-step inquiry to determine if a regulatory
    violation invalidates an underlying removal order: (1) “the
    regulation itself must serve a purpose of benefit to the alien”
    and (2) the violation must have “prejudiced interests of the
    alien which were protected by the regulation” (internal
    quotation marks omitted)).
    Here we conclude that Gomez’s 2006 deportation was
    invalid for two independent reasons. First, Gomez was
    denied his right to appeal his removal order in violation of
    due process because immigration officials failed to obtain a
    knowing waiver of that right. Second, the IJ who ordered
    Gomez removed violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding
    that Gomez’s waiver of his rights was “voluntary, knowing,
    and intelligent” when there was an insufficient factual basis
    for such a finding. However, we affirm the denial of
    Gomez’s motion to dismiss the § 1326 conviction because he
    cannot show that he was prejudiced by these violations given
    that he was ineligible for any form of relief at the time of the
    2006 proceeding.
    12                UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    1. Violations
    a. Invalid Waiver
    Obtaining an invalid waiver of the right to appeal a
    deportation order violates due process. Lopez-Vasquez,
    1 F.3d at 753–54 (“Although a deportee may waive his right
    to judicial review of his deportation order, that waiver must
    be considered and intelligent. Otherwise, the deportee is
    deprived of judicial review in violation of due process.”
    (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mendoza-Lopez,
    481 U.S. at 837–38)). Thus, although “an alien cannot
    collaterally attack an underlying deportation order if he
    validly waived the right to appeal that order,” United States
    v. Arrieta, 
    224 F.3d 1076
    , 1079 (9th Cir. 2000), “[a] valid
    waiver of the right to appeal ‘must be both considered and
    intelligent,’” Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680 (quoting Arrieta,
    224 F.3d at 1079) (additional internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    The first two prongs of § 1326(d) are satisfied if the right
    to appeal was denied in violation of due process. See Reyes-
    Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1043 (“If Reyes did not validly waive his
    right of appeal, the first two requirements under § 1326(d)
    will be satisfied.”); Ubaldo-Figueroa, 364 F.3d at 1049–50;
    see also Gonzalez-Villalobos, 
    2013 WL 3854657
    , at *4–5 &
    n.7.
    At the time of his removal proceeding, Gomez signed a
    Stipulated Removal form, printed in English and Spanish,
    waiving his right to appeal the deportation order. Gomez
    argues that because he contests the validity of his waiver, the
    government’s reliance on that form—without more—is
    insufficient to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    13
    his waiver was valid. Guided by Ramos and Reyes-Bonilla,
    we agree.
    The parties begin by debating who bears the burden of
    proving the validity of Gomez’s waiver. Under the same
    circumstances as those in this case, we have said
    unmistakably that “[t]he government bears the burden of
    proving valid waiver in a collateral attack of the underlying
    removal proceedings.” Ramos, 623 F.3d at 680 (citing Lopez-
    Vasquez, 1 F.3d at 754–54); see also Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d
    at 1043. The government must prove a valid waiver “by clear
    and convincing evidence.” Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1043
    (citing United States v. Pallares-Galan, 
    359 F.3d 1088
    , 1097
    (9th Cir. 2004)).
    We find unavailing the government’s argument that
    United States v. Medina, 
    236 F.3d 1028
    , 1030 (9th Cir. 2001),
    is to the contrary. In Medina, the defendant argued that the
    government could not prove that he had in fact been deported
    without a tape recording of the deportation proceeding. Id.
    We noted that “the lawfulness of the prior deportation is not
    an element of the offense under § 1326.” Id. (quoting United
    States v. Delgado, 
    98 F.3d 492
    , 493 (9th Cir. 1996)) (internal
    quotation marks omitted). Thus, in establishing the fact of a
    prior deportation as an element of an illegal reentry offense,
    “[t]he government merely needs to prove that [the defendant]
    was in fact previously deported.” Id. Gomez does not
    challenge the government’s ability to prove that he was in
    fact deported. Rather, Gomez argues under a separate
    provision of the statute—§ 1326(d)—that his deportation was
    invalid. In spelling out the elements of an illegal reentry
    offense in Medina, we did not silently overrule our prior
    precedent holding that “[t]he government bears the burden of
    proving the waiver.” Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d at 754 (citing
    14                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    Brewer v. Williams, 
    430 U.S. 387
    , 404 (1977) (“[I]t [is]
    incumbent upon the State to prove an intentional
    relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
    privilege.” (internal quotation marks omitted))).4
    As Ramos emphasized, this court should “‘indulge every
    reasonable presumption against waiver,’” and should “‘not
    presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’”
    623 F.3d at 680 (quoting Lopez-Vasquez, 1 F.3d at 75[4]); see
    also Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1044. We carefully abide by
    this principle, especially where an uncounseled individual
    purportedly waived his right to appeal.
    Where an alien defendant (1) was represented by counsel
    at his deportation proceeding and (2) did not allege facts
    undermining the validity of his waiver, we held that the
    government met its initial burden of proving a valid waiver
    by introducing an official immigration record. United States
    v. Galicia-Gonzalez, 
    997 F.2d 602
    , 603–04 (9th Cir. 1993).
    We stated that “where the government introduces official
    records which on their face show a valid waiver of rights in
    connection with a deportation proceeding, the burden shifts
    to the defendant to come forward with evidence tending to
    prove the waiver was invalid.” Id. at 604. There, Galicia-
    Gonzalez’s counsel signed a waiver of rights form “along
    with a declaration that she fully explained the contents of the
    agreement to him and that he entered it with full knowledge.”
    4
    Nor did Medina overrule our long-established precedent merely by
    saying that “[i]n order to collaterally attack his prior deportation, Medina
    must show that the deportation hearing was fundamentally unfair and that
    he was prejudiced by the error.” 236 F.3d at 1031 (emphasis added). At
    most, this statement merely reiterates the statutory requirement that the
    alien “demonstrate” the prongs of § 1326(d) and prove prejudice. See
    Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1039.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                     15
    Id. at 603. And Galicia-Gonzalez did “not even allege[] there
    was anything wrong with his deportation, i.e., that his rights
    were improperly explained or that he was coerced into
    waiving them. The government’s prima facie showing thus
    stands unchallenged and this satisfies the government’s
    burden of showing a valid deportation for purposes of section
    1326.” Id. at 604.
    Galicia-Gonzalez is not controlling here for two
    independent reasons: (1) Gomez was not represented by
    counsel at his removal proceeding, and (2) Gomez contested
    the validity of his waiver and alleged facts supporting its
    invalidity in the district court when prosecuted for illegal
    reentry. First, Ramos explicitly held that the district court
    erred by relying on Galicia-Gonzalez to shift the burden to
    Ramos, because Galicia-Gonzalez was represented at his
    deportation proceeding while Ramos was not. Ramos,
    623 F.3d at 680 (noting “that the district court erred in
    concluding that the validity of Ramos’s stipulated removal
    order was controlled by our decision in Galicia-Gonzalez”
    because “unlike the petitioner in Galicia-Gonzalez, who had
    received a full explanation of a stipulated removal agreement
    from his counsel, and who had entered into the stipulation
    through counsel, Ramos lacked the benefit of legal
    representation”). Second, when a defendant in a § 1326
    prosecution contests the validity of his waiver of the right to
    appeal his deportation order, we have held that the
    government’s introduction of an official document signed by
    the defendant waiving his right to appeal is insufficient to
    meet the government’s burden of proving a valid waiver.
    Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at 1043–45 (noting that the district
    court’s finding of valid waiver “would be sound if Reyes had
    not contested his understanding of the notice” but holding
    that the signed notice was inadequate to meet the
    16               UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    government’s burden where Reyes testified in district court
    that he had lacked understanding of the removal
    proceedings).
    The circumstances underlying the stipulated deportation
    in Ramos are strikingly similar to the circumstances here.
    Like Ramos, Gomez was unrepresented and, like Ramos, was
    deported pursuant to a stipulated removal proceeding at the
    Eloy, Arizona detention facility. See Ramos, 623 F.3d at 677.
    Ramos signed the same stipulation as Gomez. The preprinted
    stipulation form contains both English and Spanish
    statements that waive the alien’s rights to counsel, ¶4, to a
    hearing before an IJ, ¶5, to any form of relief (including
    voluntary departure), ¶8, and to appeal, ¶13. In Ramos, we
    described the process for stipulated removal proceedings at
    Eloy:
    After detainees are selected for participation
    in the stipulated removal program, deportation
    officers typically prepare an NTA and a
    Stipulated Removal form for each individual.
    Deportation officers then gather detainees
    selected for the program for a group
    presentation.       There, an immigration
    enforcement agent explains in Spanish that a
    detainee has two options: first, to accept
    stipulated removal, or second, to appear
    before an IJ, where the detainee may ask to
    remain legally in the United States or seek
    voluntary departure. The agent also advises
    the group that under the stipulated removal
    program, a detainee can be removed that very
    day; whereas it could take anywhere from two
    to three weeks or longer to appear before an IJ
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    17
    if the detainee chooses not to sign the form.
    The agent then reads the text of the Stipulated
    Removal form aloud in Spanish, and
    concludes the presentation. Next, DHS
    deportation officers meet individually with
    each detainee to determine whether he or she
    wants to sign the Stipulated Removal form.
    Deportation officers do not review the
    detainee’s A-file at any time before or during
    the individual meeting. No transcriber,
    interpreter, or attorney is present during the
    detainee’s individual meeting with the
    deportation officer.
    Id. at 678. This description is consistent with the record in
    this case, in particular Gomez’s sworn declaration.
    In Ramos, we described the testimony of the immigration
    officer who met individually with Ramos after the en masse
    reading, and we noted her limited Spanish language skills.
    623 F.3d at 678–79. We concluded that “Ramos’s waiver of
    his right to appeal was invalid for several independent
    reasons” including because his waiver “was not ‘considered
    or intelligent’ because he did not receive a competent Spanish
    language translation of his right to appeal when he signed the
    form.” Id. at 680.
    We are not persuaded by the government’s argument that
    Ramos relied on the incompetence of the immigration
    officer’s individual translation. This argument improperly
    shifts the burden to the alien defendant to prove an
    incompetent explanation of the alien’s rights; however, the
    burden to prove a competent explanation, and thus valid
    waiver, rests with the government. “We cannot conclude that
    18                UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    waiver of rights, including the right to appeal, was
    ‘considered or intelligent’ without evidence that a detainee
    was ‘able to understand the questions posed to him’ when put
    to the choice of foregoing all rights or remaining in detention
    until he could appear before an IJ.” Ramos, 623 F.3d at 681
    (emphasis added) (citing Perez-Lastor v. INS, 
    208 F.3d 773
    ,
    778 (9th Cir. 2000)). The fact that Ramos signed a
    stipulation indicating his understanding and waiver, and that
    the IJ found his waiver to be “voluntary, knowing, and
    intelligent,” id. at 679, was insufficient to meet the
    government’s burden of proof; and the government offers
    nothing more here. See also Reyes-Bonilla, 671 F.3d at
    1044–45 (concluding that the government failed to meet its
    burden of proving a valid waiver where the evidence was
    “unclear” as to whether the immigration officer explained to
    Reyes “in a language he could understand” his right to appeal
    and there was “no evidence as to the extent of the explanation
    given or [the immigration officer’s] ability to communicate
    in Spanish”).
    Thus, we see no reason to distinguish Ramos. If anything,
    there is more evidence here that Gomez had difficulty
    understanding the stipulated removal proceeding. Gomez
    stated in his declaration that he filed in the district court that
    he has difficulty reading Spanish, that he did not understand
    the stipulated proceeding, and that he received the same sort
    of en masse reading of the stipulation as Ramos. Gomez also
    stated that the immigration officer did not review the
    Stipulated Removal form with him during his individual
    meeting with the officer. The government has presented no
    evidence—other than the signed form—that Gomez was
    provided with a competent translation when he signed it. As
    we held in Ramos, due process requires that an alien be
    provided an individual explanation that is competently
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                           19
    translated “when he sign[s] the form” above and beyond an
    en masse explanation. 623 F.3d at 680.
    Moreover, shifting the burden to Gomez to prove an
    incompetent translation would skew the government’s
    incentives and create an insurmountable hurdle for alien
    defendants. In Ramos, the government produced the
    immigration officer at a hearing only to have the court find
    that her translation had been inadequate. As here, the
    government may not always be able to produce the
    immigration officer; or she may be otherwise unavailable.
    Thus, it is not realistic to expect the defendant to produce the
    officer. Furthermore, if the government can stand silent and
    merely rely on the signed stipulation as sufficiently “clear and
    convincing” evidence, then it would have no incentive to
    produce an immigration officer witness.
    In sum, we hold that the stipulated removal proceeding at
    Eloy violated Gomez’s right to due process by obtaining an
    invalid waiver of Gomez’s right to appeal the deportation
    order. The government has not met its burden of proving by
    “clear and convincing evidence” that Gomez validly waived
    his right to that appeal.5
    5
    The government’s argument—that the stipulated removal process set
    forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) is constitutional—misses the point. Gomez
    does not contend that the regulation is unconstitutional, but rather that
    immigration authorities frequently abuse the regulatory procedure in
    violation of due process, and did so here. It is not uncommon that the
    Constitution requires more than what is included in the bare text of any
    given statute or regulation. To hold, as Ramos did, that the government
    must meet its burden of proving a valid waiver does not invalidate the
    procedures set forth in § 1003.25(b).
    20                    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    b. Regulatory violation
    Gomez also argues that his deportation was invalid
    because the IJ violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding that
    Gomez’s waiver of rights was “voluntary, knowing, and
    intelligent” without a sufficient factual record.6 Again, our
    6
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) provides in full:
    An Immigration Judge may enter an order of
    deportation, exclusion or removal stipulated to by the
    alien (or the alien’s representative) and the Service.
    The Immigration Judge may enter such an order
    without a hearing and in the absence of the parties
    based on a review of the charging document, the
    written stipulation, and supporting documents, if any.
    If the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge
    must determine that the alien’s waiver is voluntary,
    knowing, and intelligent. The stipulated request and
    required waivers shall be signed on behalf of the
    government and by the alien and his or her attorney or
    representative, if any. The attorney or representative
    shall file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with
    § 1003.16(b). A stipulated order shall constitute a
    conclusive determination of the alien’s deportability or
    removability from the United States. The stipulation
    shall include:
    (1) An admission that all factual allegations contained
    in the charging document are true and correct as
    written;
    (2) A concession of deportability or inadmissibility as
    charged;
    (3) A statement that the alien makes no application for
    relief under the Act;
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                            21
    reasoning in Ramos is directly on point and does not rely on
    the concern of incompetent translation. Independent of the
    invalid waiver issue, we found that Ramos’s Stipulated
    Removal form provided an inadequate basis on which the IJ
    could rely to evaluate the validity of Ramos’s waiver of
    rights. “Without any independent inquiry of the petitioner,
    and depending solely on information provided by DHS, the
    IJ concluded that Ramos had ‘voluntarily, knowingly, and
    intelligently’ waived his due process rights.” Ramos,
    623 F.3d at 683. Despite the form’s explicit waiver language,
    we concluded that the IJ’s finding “violated 8 C.F.R.
    § 1003.25(b) by failing to determine whether [Ramos’s]
    waiver was ‘voluntary, knowing, and intelligent,’ as required
    by the regulation.” Id. We concluded that the regulatory
    violation would have been sufficient to invalidate Ramos’s
    underlying removal but for a lack of prejudice. See id. at
    683–84.
    (4) A designation of a country for deportation or
    removal under section 241(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act;
    (5) A concession to the introduction of the written
    stipulation of the alien as an exhibit to the Record of
    Proceeding;
    (6) A statement that the alien understands the
    consequences of the stipulated request and that the alien
    enters the request voluntarily, knowingly, and
    intelligently;
    (7) A statement that the alien will accept a written order
    for his or her deportation, exclusion or removal as a
    final disposition of the proceedings; and
    (8) A waiver of appeal of the written order of
    deportation or removal.
    22                  UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    Here, on January 19, 2006, Gomez signed the revised
    Notice to Appear requesting a prompt hearing before an IJ.
    On the same day, he signed the Stipulated Removal form
    waiving, inter alia, the right to a hearing before an IJ.
    Without a hearing, and only on the basis of Gomez’s signed
    Stipulated Removal form, the IJ found Gomez’s “waiver to be
    voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” The IJ then found,
    “upon review of the charging document and the written
    stipulation that he is removable based upon clear and
    convincing evidence in the form of his own admissions” and
    ordered him removed.7
    We do not read Ramos to require an actual appearance by
    every alien before an IJ, a possibility that the district court
    considered here. Rather, as the district court also discussed,
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) can be read to contain two disjunctive
    provisions:
    [1] An Immigration Judge may enter an order
    of deportation, exclusion or removal
    stipulated to by the alien (or the alien’s
    representative) and the Service.       The
    Immigration Judge may enter such an order
    without a hearing and in the absence of the
    parties based on a review of the charging
    document, the written stipulation, and
    supporting documents, if any. [Or,]
    [2] [i]f the alien is unrepresented, the
    Immigration Judge must determine that the
    7
    We are left to assume that the stipulation was signed subsequent to the
    demand for a prompt hearing (which appears on the NTA) and that the IJ
    inferred that the stipulation was controlling.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                             23
    alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and
    intelligent.
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). In other words, we could read the
    second provision to rebut the first: where an alien is
    unrepresented, the IJ’s duty to determine the waiver’s validity
    supercedes the IJ’s ability to do so without a hearing.
    However, we need not decide that issue. Rather, as Gomez
    points out, there are several other avenues that immigration
    officials could pursue to create a sufficient factual record
    without conducting a hearing. For example, the government
    could provide a written declaration by the immigration officer
    of the circumstances surrounding the alien’s waiver, stating
    that avenues of relief were discussed and that the officer
    provided a competently translated, individualized explanation
    of the rights the alien waived.8
    Here, we conclude that the procedures followed in
    removing Gomez violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) because the
    IJ could not have found that Gomez’s waiver was “voluntary,
    knowing, and intelligent” based on the evidence before him,
    and thus violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). See Ramos,
    623 F.3d at 683.
    Therefore, on the basis of both his invalid waiver of the
    right to appeal the deportation order and the IJ’s regulatory
    violation, Gomez has met the requirements of 8 U.S.C.
    § 1326(d)(1)–(2) to attack collaterally the validity of his 2006
    8
    We do not purport to set forth an exhaustive list of what would be
    necessary or sufficient to comply with this requirement in every case. The
    gravamen of our holding is that an IJ must have before him a sufficient
    record on which to determine that an alien’s waiver of rights is “voluntary,
    knowing, and intelligent.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b).
    24                  UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    deportation. We next turn to whether Gomez was prejudiced
    by these violations.
    2. Prejudice
    As discussed supra, in a collateral attack on the validity
    of a deportation order the defendant bears the burden of
    proving prejudice under § 1326(d)(3). See Medina, 236 F.3d
    at 1032. To establish prejudice in this context, the defendant
    must show that it was “plausible” that he would have received
    some form of relief from removal had his rights not been
    violated in the removal proceedings. See Arrieta, 224 F.3d at
    1079. “In order to demonstrate prejudice, [an alien] would
    also have to show that he is not barred from receiving relief.
    If he is barred from receiving relief, his claim is not
    ‘plausible.’” United States v. Gonzalez-Valerio, 
    342 F.3d 1051
    , 1056 (9th Cir. 2003).
    Gomez argues that he was prejudiced by the due process
    and regulatory violations during his removal proceeding
    because he was eligible for and would have pursued pre-
    hearing voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c. The
    government contends that Gomez was ineligible for voluntary
    departure because his previous Arizona conviction qualifies
    as an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43).9
    9
    Gomez also argues that his Arizona conviction is irrelevant because it
    was not included on the revised NTA that formed the basis for his
    deportation. This court has held “that due process does not require
    inclusion of charges in the NTA that are not grounds for removal but are
    grounds for denial of relief from removal.” Salviejo-Fernandez v.
    Gonzales, 
    455 F.3d 1063
    , 1066 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, even when the
    NTA fails to include a reference to an aggravated felony, that failure
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                             25
    Under § 1229c, an alien is generally eligible for voluntary
    departure so long as he has not been convicted of an
    “aggravated felony” rendering him deportable under 8 U.S.C.
    § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and is not deportable for reasons of
    national security under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4).              Id.
    § 1229c(b)(1)(C). The “aggravated felony” definition is set
    forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) and includes “sexual abuse
    of a minor,” id. § 1101(a)(43)(A), and “an attempt . . . to
    commit an offense described in this paragraph,” id.
    § 1101(a)(43)(U).10
    would not bar the government from introducing such a conviction later in
    an immigration proceeding as a basis for the IJ to find an alien ineligible
    for voluntary departure.
    10
    We note that “based on a review of Arizona’s caselaw, it is clear that
    Arizona’s definition of attempt is coextensive with the federal definition.”
    United States v. Taylor, 
    529 F.3d 1232
    , 1238 (9th Cir. 2008) (reviewing
    several Arizona cases that pre-date Gomez’s conviction and deportation);
    see also United States v. Gomez-Hernandez, 
    680 F.3d 1171
    , 1175 (9th Cir.
    2012). Here, Gomez was convicted of “attempted sexual conduct with a
    minor under the age of 15” in violation of Arizona Revised Statute
    sections 13-1001 and 13-1405. Because Arizona’s attempt statute (§ 13-
    1001) is “coextensive with the federal definition,” Taylor, 529 F.3d at
    1238, “we are satisfied that [he] was convicted of the generic elements of
    attempt,” Gomez-Hernandez, 680 F.3d at 1175. Therefore, we only
    address the definition of the substantive crime set forth in § 13-1405.
    26                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    Aside from a narrow exception not presented here,11 we
    look to the law at the time of the deportation proceedings to
    determine whether an alien was eligible for relief from
    deportation. Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d at 1017–19; Lopez-
    Velasquez, 629 F.3d at 895, 897, 901. Gomez argues that
    Vidal-Mendoza and Lopez-Velasquez are inapplicable to our
    prejudice inquiry here. He asserts that those cases dealt only
    with our due process inquiry and that we must look to current
    case law when deciding prejudice. We read our case law
    more broadly. Gomez offers no persuasive authority or logic
    11
    United States v. Leon-Paz, 
    340 F.3d 1003
     (9th Cir. 2003) presents the
    only example of the “narrow circumstances [where] we [have] applied
    subsequent precedent in reviewing a deportation order.” United States v.
    Lopez-Velasquez, 
    629 F.3d 894
    , 899 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc); see United
    States v. Vidal-Mendoza, 
    705 F.3d 1012
    , 1017 (9th Cir. 2013).
    Leon-Paz [] involved an alien’s collateral challenge to
    his removal order on the ground that the IJ failed to
    inform him of his “apparent eligibility” for
    discretionary relief under § 212(c). 340 F.3d at 1005.
    At the time of his removal hearing, Congress had
    changed the law to limit the availability of § 212(c)
    relief for aliens convicted of aggravated felonies, but
    we had not yet weighed in on whether these statutory
    changes were applicable retroactively to aliens like
    Leon-Paz. See id. at 1006–07. Shortly after Leon-
    Paz’s removal hearing, the Supreme Court held that
    these changes applied prospectively only. INS v. St.
    Cyr, 
    533 U.S. 289
    , 326 (2001).
    Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d at 1017–18. This situation is not presented here.
    Rather, as in Vidal-Mendoza and Lopez-Velasquez, “the post-removal
    precedent . . . created a new, previously unavailable, possibility of relief
    by making a ‘deviation’ from ‘longstanding Ninth Circuit and BIA
    precedent.’” Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d at 1018 (quoting Lopez-Velasquez,
    629 F.3d at 898). We evaluate this new precedent with respect to
    Gomez’s sentencing arguments, infra at III.B.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                               27
    on which to distinguish our reasoning in Vidal-Mendoza and
    Lopez-Velasquez when deciding prejudice.
    Therefore, we must decide whether Gomez’s conviction
    for “attempted sexual conduct with a minor under the age of
    15” in violation of Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405
    qualified as an “aggravated felony,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43),
    at the time he was ordered deported in January 2006.12 We
    conclude that Gomez’s conviction would have qualified as
    “sexual abuse of a minor,” defined as an aggravated felony
    under § 1101(a)(43)(A).
    12
    Gomez’s statute of conviction provides: “A person commits sexual
    conduct with a minor by [1] intentionally or knowingly [2] engaging in
    sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with [3] any person who is under
    eighteen years of age.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405A. “Sexual conduct
    with a minor who is under fifteen years of age is a class 2 felony . . . .” Id.
    § 13-1405B. Gomez argues that we should only look to the statutory
    language in § 13-1405A. We disagree. Gomez was indicted for and
    convicted of violating the “under fifteen” version of the statute.
    Therefore, our analysis is limited to that version. To the extent that § 13-
    1405B contains other provisions, the “under fifteen” provision is divisible
    from them, and, under the governing law in 2006, we may consider the
    indictment and plea agreement’s clear language showing that Gomez was
    charged with sexual conduct with “a minor under the age of fifteen.” See
    Shepard v. United States, 
    544 U.S. 13
    , 16, 26 (2005) (holding that a court
    determining the character of an underlying crime using the modified
    categorical approach may consider, inter alia, the “charging document”
    and “written plea agreement”); see also Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2283–85
    (describing that Taylor v. United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
    , 602 (1990)
    permitted courts to review a limited group of documents when the statute
    of conviction is “‘divisible’—i.e., comprises multiple, alternative versions
    of the crime”). The provisions in § 13-1405B set forth such “alternative
    versions” because the statute defines the victim as being either “at least
    fifteen” or “under fifteen.”
    28                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    We first defined the term ‘sexual abuse of a
    minor’ for purposes of § 1101(a)(43)(A) in
    United States v. Baron-Medina, 
    187 F.3d 1144
    [, 1146–47] (9th Cir. 1999), where we
    applied the ‘ordinary, contemporary, and
    common meaning’ of ‘sexual abuse of a
    minor,’ and concluded that any ‘use of young
    children for the gratification of sexual desires
    constitutes an abuse’ because the ‘child [is]
    too young to understand the nature of
    [defendant’s] . . . advances.’
    Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d at 1019 (second and third
    alterations in original).13 The statute at issue in Baron-
    Medina criminalized “the touching of an underage child’s
    body . . . with a sexual intent,” where the child was under
    fourteen years of age. 187 F.3d at 1145, 1147; accord
    Cedano-Viera, 324 F.3d at 1065–66 & n.4. We later held that
    a conviction under a Virginia statute criminalizing intercourse
    with “a child . . . under fifteen years of age” constituted
    “sexual abuse of a minor” in the sentencing context. United
    States v. Pereira-Salmeron, 
    337 F.3d 1148
    , 1155 (9th Cir.
    2003) (alteration in original).14
    13
    We also “pointed out that Congress did not cross-reference any federal
    substantive offense in listing ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ as an aggravated
    felony,” and therefore did not limit the term to a single federal definition.
    Cedano-Viera v. Ashcroft, 
    324 F.3d 1062
    , 1065 (9th Cir. 2003).
    14
    We note that the analysis for defining substantive offenses enumerated
    in § 1101(a)(43)—such as “rape” or “sexual abuse of a minor”—“is the
    same for a ‘crime of violence’ in the sentencing context, U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.2.” United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 
    608 F.3d 1103
    , 1107 n.1
    (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder, 
    589 F.3d 1010
    , 1013 n.1
    (9th Cir. 2009), and United States v. Medina-Villa, 
    567 F.3d 507
    , 511–12
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                           29
    The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) precedent
    also guides our conclusion. In In re Rodriguez-Rodriguez,
    22 I. & N. Dec. 991 (B.I.A. 1999), the BIA broadly defined
    “sexual abuse of a minor” to exceed the definitions set forth
    in various federal criminal statutes, so as to include abuse that
    did not involve actual contact. Id. at 995–96. In so holding,
    the BIA looked to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a) (1994) (setting forth
    the rights of child victims and witnesses), which “defines
    ‘sexual abuse’ as ‘the employment, use, persuasion,
    inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in,
    or assist another person to engage in, sexually explicit
    conduct or the rape, molestation, prostitution, or other form
    of sexual exploitation of children, or incest with children.’”
    Id. at 995 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(8)). The BIA did not
    set forth a threshold age at which such conduct would
    constitute “abuse,” though § 3509(a)(2) defines “child” as “a
    person who is under the age of 18.”
    Most tellingly, in April 2006—just three months after
    Gomez’s deportation—we relied on In re Rodriguez-
    Rodriguez to affirm the BIA’s holding that sexual intercourse
    with a 17-year-old constituted “sexual abuse of a minor” as
    defined by § 1101(a)(43)(A). Afridi v. Gonzales, 
    442 F.3d 1212
    , 1214–17 (9th Cir. 2006), overruled by Estrada-
    Espinoza v. Mukasey, 
    546 F.3d 1147
     (9th Cir. 2008) (en
    banc), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Aguila-
    Montes de Oca, 
    655 F.3d 915
     (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (per
    (9th Cir. 2009)); see also United States v. Medina-Maella, 
    351 F.3d 944
    ,
    947 (9th Cir. 2003) (relying in the context of criminal sentencing upon
    cases defining “sexual abuse of a minor” in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A)).
    Therefore, the analysis in sentencing cases such as Pereira-Salmeron is
    directly applicable to our analysis here.
    30                  UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    curiam), abrogated by Descamps, 
    133 S. Ct. 2276
    .15 Unlike
    Estrada-Espinoza, 546 F.3d at 1152, Afridi—like all of our
    cases preceding Gomez’s 2006 deportation—did not
    explicitly rely on the fact that the subject statute required the
    defendant to be a certain number of years older than the
    victim. 442 F.3d at 1217. Applying the categorical approach,
    we held that the California statute of conviction that
    criminalizes conduct by “‘[a]ny person who engages in an act
    of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than
    three years younger than the perpetrator,’” was categorically
    “sexual abuse of a minor.” Id. (quoting Cal. Penal Code
    § 261.5(c)). We stated:
    A conviction under this statute meets the
    BIA’s interpretation of “sexual abuse of a
    minor” as encompassing any offense that
    involves “the employment, use, persuasion,
    inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child
    to engage in . . . sexually explicit conduct
    . . . .” In re Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 22 I. & N.
    Dec. at 991, 995. Mr. Afridi had sexual
    intercourse with a seventeen-year-old girl who
    was more than three years younger than he.
    Sexual intercourse clearly constitutes
    “sexually explicit conduct,” and the
    seventeen-year-old victim in this matter was
    a “minor” as that term is commonly defined.
    Further, the BIA’s definition of “sexual abuse
    15
    We have said that Estrada-Espinoza, which was not decided until
    2008, “sharply departed from” our prior precedent defining “sexual abuse
    of a minor” for purposes of § 1101(a)(43)(A). Vidal-Mendoza, 705 F.3d
    at 1020. We evaluate our current law, including Estrada-Espinoza, infra
    at III.B.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                    31
    of a minor” is not limited to victims of any
    certain age. Therefore, his offense falls
    within that definition. Accordingly, the BIA
    properly found that Petitioner was removable
    for having committed an aggravated felony
    ....
    Id. (first and second alterations in original).
    Construing the two statutory provisions together, see
    supra note 12, Gomez’s statute of conviction contains three
    elements: (1) a mens rea of “intentionally or knowingly”; (2)
    an act of “engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual
    contact”; and (3) a victim “who is under fifteen years of age.”
    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1405. Although the case law that
    existed in 2006 did not explicitly enumerate the elements of
    “sexual abuse of a minor,” these three elements were
    sufficient to fall categorically within the then-existing BIA
    and Ninth Circuit definition. The “sexual intercourse or oral
    sexual contact” element of § 13-1405 clearly constitutes
    “sexually explicit conduct.” See In re Rodriguez-Rodriguez,
    22 I. & N. Dec. at 995. And a victim under fifteen years of
    age fits squarely within the definition of “minor.” Id. at
    995–97; Afridi, 442 F.3d at 1217. Under the logic of In re
    Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 995–96, and
    Pereira-Salmeron, 337 F.3d at 1155, such conduct with a
    victim under fifteen years of age constituted “abuse” at the
    time.
    Thus, under the governing case law at the time of his
    deportation, Gomez’s crime would have categorically
    qualified as “sexual abuse of a minor” for the purposes of
    8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A), and he would not have been
    eligible for voluntary departure. Because Gomez was not
    32                 UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    prejudiced by the due process and regulatory violations that
    occurred in his 2006 removal proceeding, we affirm the
    district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.
    B. Sentencing
    We next determine whether, under current law, Gomez’s
    § 13-1405 conviction constitutes a “crime of violence” within
    the meaning of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). Because our
    case law has evolved since 2006, we conclude the opposite
    from what we concluded with respect to the prejudice inquiry.
    That is, we hold that Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405
    (including the “under fifteen” version) is not categorically a
    “crime of violence,” and the district court’s finding to the
    contrary was reversible error.         Applying Descamps,
    133 S. Ct. at 2283, 2292, we do not analyze the statute under
    the modified categorical approach because it is missing an
    element of the generic offenses. Thus, we vacate Gomez’s
    sentence and remand for resentencing.
    The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide for a sixteen-
    level enhancement where the defendant was previously
    deported after a conviction for “a crime of violence.”
    U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). The commentary defines
    “crime of violence” as “any of the following offenses under
    federal, state, or local law: . . . statutory rape, [or] sexual
    abuse of a minor.” Id. cmt. 1(B)(iii).16 The district court
    imposed a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement because it
    found that Gomez’s conviction constituted “statutory rape.”
    16
    The government argues only that Gomez’s Arizona conviction
    qualifies as either “statutory rape” or as “sexual abuse of a minor.”
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                              33
    We begin by analyzing the Arizona statute of conviction
    under the familiar categorical approach set forth in Taylor v.
    United States, 
    495 U.S. 575
     (1990). As we said above,
    construing the two statutory provisions together, Gomez’s
    statute of conviction contains three elements: (1) a mens rea
    of “intentionally or knowingly”; (2) an act of “engaging in
    sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact”; and (3) a victim
    “who is under fifteen years of age.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-
    1405.17
    Thus, we look to the generic definitions of “sexual abuse
    of a minor” and of “statutory rape” to determine if the
    elements of § 13-1405 are the same as, or more narrow than,
    the generic offenses. See Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2283
    (summarizing Taylor and noting that “if the [state] statute
    sweeps more broadly than the generic crime, a conviction
    under that law cannot count” for the purposes of a sentencing
    enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act). Three
    related lines of cases compel us to conclude that the statute,
    even including the “under fifteen” version, is missing an
    element of both “sexual abuse of a minor” and of “statutory
    rape” and therefore sweeps more broadly than the generic
    offenses. Thus, a conviction under the statute is not
    categorically a “crime of violence” within the meaning of
    U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    17
    As we discussed supra at note 12, we may consider that Gomez was
    convicted pursuant to the “under fifteen” version of the statute. See
    Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2283–85 (reiterating that courts may consider a
    limited group of documents when the statute of conviction is
    “‘divisible’—i.e., comprises multiple, alternative versions of the crime”).
    Although we ultimately conclude that § 13-1405 is missing elements of
    the relevant generic offenses, the provisions set forth in § 13-1405B are
    indeed “divisible” because the statute defines the victim as being either “at
    least fifteen” or “under fifteen.”
    34                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    First, in a unanimous en banc decision, we defined the
    generic offense of “sexual abuse of a minor” as requiring
    “four elements: (1) a mens rea level of knowingly; (2) a
    sexual act; (3) with a minor between the ages of 12 and 16;
    and (4) an age difference of at least four years between the
    defendant and the minor.” Estrada-Espinoza, 546 F.3d at
    1152, 1156 (defining “what would, in more common
    parlance, be referred to as statutory rape”); see also 18 U.S.C.
    § 2243; Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1107.
    Second, we held that the definition set forth in Estrada-
    Espinoza was merely a definition of “statutory rape”18 and
    18
    The government argues that the generic definition of “statutory rape”
    does not include the element of a four-year age differential. The
    government relies on United States v. Gomez-Mendez, 
    486 F.3d 599
    , 603
    (9th Cir. 2007) and Rodriguez-Guzman, 506 F.3d at 745, for the
    proposition that statutory rape merely requires a victim under sixteen years
    of age, and not the additional element of a four-year age differential. This
    argument is directly contradicted by Estrada-Espinoza, 546 F.3d at 1158.
    Moreover, regardless of whether these cases were overruled by Estrada-
    Espinoza, neither case stands for the proposition the government asserts.
    In Rodriguez-Guzman we looked to the Model Penal Code’s
    definition of statutory rape, which requires as elements that the victim “‘is
    less than [16] years old and the actor is at least [four] years older than the
    other person.’” 506 F.3d at 745 (alterations in original) (emphasis added)
    (quoting MPC § 213.3(1)(a)). We also looked to the same federal statute
    that we later considered in Estrada-Espinoza, which similarly contained
    the dual requirements that the victim be under sixteen years old and be
    “‘at least four years younger’” than the perpetrator. Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C.
    § 2243(a)). Finally, we held that the statute at issue in Rodriguez-Guzman
    was in fact over-inclusive because it applied to victims who were sixteen
    and seventeen years old—we did not reach the issue of whether it was also
    over-inclusive because it lacked the element of a four-year age
    differential. Id. at 746–47. Nor did we reach the four-year age differential
    element in Gomez-Mendez. Indeed, the statute at issue in Gomez-Mendez
    included a five-year age differential element, which required the victim to
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                             35
    that a residual category of “sexual abuse of a minor” exists
    for the purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 that encompasses
    statutes where (1) “the conduct proscribed . . . is sexual;” (2)
    “the statute protects a minor;” and (3) “the statute requires
    abuse.” Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d at 513. In turn, we defined
    the term “abuse” as “physical or psychological harm in light
    of the age of the victim in question.” Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted). We have noted that sexual contact with a
    victim under the age of fourteen is categorically “abuse,” see
    United States v. Lopez-Solis, 
    447 F.3d 1201
    , 1209 (9th Cir.
    2006), but we have never held that such a per se rule applies
    to consensual sex with persons fourteen and older. See
    Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1107 (recognizing the two
    distinct generic definitions of “sexual abuse of a minor” and
    finding that a statute will contain the element of abuse under
    the Medina-Villa definition if it “applies to sexual conduct
    with children younger than fourteen years”); Pelayo-Garcia,
    589 F.3d at 1015–16 (rejecting argument that a statute that
    criminalizes sex between someone over twenty-one with a
    minor under sixteen is per se “abusive”).
    be under sixteen years old and the perpetrator to be over twenty-one years
    old. 486 F.3d at 601.
    Moreover, as we noted supra note 14, although 8 U.S.C.
    § 1101(a)(43)(F)’s definition of “crime of violence” is distinct from the
    definition in U.S.S.G § 2L1.2, Rodriguez-Guzman, 506 F.3d at 741–42,
    the analysis for defining the generic substantive offenses enumerated in
    § 1101(a)(43)—such as “rape” or “sexual abuse of a minor”—“is the same
    for a ‘crime of violence’ in the sentencing context, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.”
    Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1107 n.1 (citing Pelayo-Garcia, 589 F.3d
    at 1013 n.1, and Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d at 511–12). Therefore, the
    definition of “statutory rape” spelled out in Estrada-Espinoza is applicable
    here in the sentencing context.
    36                   UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    Third, in addressing the “under eighteen” version of the
    statute, we have expressly determined that convictions under
    § 13-1405 meet neither the generic definition of “statutory
    rape” set forth in Estrada-Espinoza nor the generic definition
    of “abuse of a minor” set forth in Medina-Villa. Rivera-
    Cuartas v. Holder, 
    605 F.3d 699
    , 701–02 (9th Cir. 2010).19
    “On its face, § 13-1405 does not meet the definition for
    statutory rape crimes set forth in Estrada-Espinoza for two
    reasons: (1) it lacks the age difference requirement; and (2) is
    broader than the generic offense with respect to the age of the
    minor because the statute applies to persons under eighteen
    years of age.” Id. at 702. Here, analyzing the “under fifteen”
    version of § 13-1405, the statute continues to lack the age
    difference element. “Section 13-1405 also does not meet the
    generic definition of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ under the
    Medina-Villa framework as it lacks the element of ‘abuse.’”
    Id. Again, analyzing the “under fifteen” version, the statute
    continues to lack the element of “abuse” because the statute
    may apply to victims who are not “younger than fourteen
    years.” Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d at 1107; see also
    Pelayo-Garcia, 589 F.3d at 1015–16.
    19
    We note that we previously affirmed a sixteen-level sentencing
    enhancement for a violation of Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405
    when reviewing only for “plain error.” See United States v. Gonzalez-
    Aparicio, 
    663 F.3d 419
     (9th Cir. 2011). There, the majority declined to
    address the question we decide here because, in its view, the law was not
    “plain” enough to warrant a reversal of the sentence imposed by the
    district court. Id. at 432 (noting that the morass of case law “should be
    resolved only after the defendant properly raises an objection before the
    district court and the district court thereby has a real opportunity to make
    an informed and reasoned ruling that could assist any ultimate
    resolution”). Here, Gomez objected to the sentencing enhancement in the
    district court, and we now have occasion to clarify the question left
    unanswered in Gonzalez-Aparicio.
    UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ                      37
    Therefore, Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405, even
    including the “under fifteen” version, is missing an element
    of the generic definition for “statutory rape” and for “sexual
    abuse of a minor.” Thus, the statute is not categorically a
    “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii).
    Because the statute is missing an element of these generic
    crimes, our inquiry ends here—we do not undertake a
    modified categorical analysis. Descamps, 133 S. Ct. at 2283,
    2292 (holding that the modified categorical approach does not
    apply to statutes that contain an “‘indivisible’ set of elements
    sweeping more broadly than the corresponding generic
    offense,” meaning that “the statute of conviction has an
    overbroad or missing element”). “Because of the mismatch
    in elements, a person convicted under that statute is never
    convicted of the generic crime.” Id. at 2292.
    We also reject the government’s argument that the
    sentencing error was harmless. In imposing the sentence, the
    district court stated:
    I would also note that if I’m wrong on the
    calculations, I’m fairly confident that the
    sentence that likely would be imposed
    assuming the Court or court on appeal would
    find that the statutory rape is not applicable
    and that the four-year age differential is
    essential and that the Court is wrong on
    finding that there’s a crime of violence on
    either theory [categorical or modified
    categorical] that’s been suggested, I would
    doubt very much that there would be any
    significant change in the sentence that’s about
    to be imposed.
    38               UNITED STATES V. GOMEZ
    The government’s argument is unpersuasive. The district
    court did not actually calculate the sentence it would have
    imposed absent the enhancement and imposed a sentence that
    was above the Guidelines range absent the enhancement. See
    United States v. Munoz-Camarena, 
    631 F.3d 1028
    , 1030 n.5
    (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that a Guidelines calculation error
    may be harmless if one of four non-exhaustive factors is
    satisfied, including if the district court “chooses a within-
    Guidelines sentence that falls within . . . the correct
    Guidelines range”); see also United States v. Acosta-Chavez,
    No. 12-10324, 
    2013 WL 4082128
    , at *5 (9th Cir. Aug. 14,
    2013).
    IV. CONCLUSION
    In sum, we hold that the IJ violated an immigration
    regulation designed to protect an alien’s right to judicial
    review and that Gomez was denied due process in his 2006
    removal proceedings, but that these violations were harmless
    in light of his ineligibility for relief from removal. We
    therefore affirm the denial of his motion to dismiss the
    indictment. We further hold that Gomez’s conviction under
    Arizona Revised Statute section 13-1405 did not constitute a
    “crime of violence” within the meaning of U.S.S.G.
    § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), and therefore the district court erred in
    applying a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement. Thus, we
    vacate Gomez’s sentence and remand for resentencing.
    AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part, and
    REMANDED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-30262

Citation Numbers: 732 F.3d 971, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20410, 2013 WL 5508796

Judges: Fisher, Gould, Paez

Filed Date: 10/7/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

Authorities (41)

Jose Encarnacion Cedano-Viera v. John D. Ashcroft, U.S. ... , 324 F.3d 1062 ( 2003 )

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. St. Cyr , 121 S. Ct. 2271 ( 2001 )

United States v. Alfredo Lopez-Solis, AKA Alfredo Lopez , 447 F.3d 1201 ( 2006 )

United States v. Barajas-Alvarado , 655 F.3d 1077 ( 2011 )

Shepard v. United States , 125 S. Ct. 1254 ( 2005 )

Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 ( 2013 )

United States v. Berger , 587 F.3d 1038 ( 2009 )

United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 629 F.3d 894 ( 2010 )

United States v. Isidro Ubaldo-Figueroa , 364 F.3d 1042 ( 2004 )

United States v. Rogelio Medina, AKA Rogelo Medina , 236 F.3d 1028 ( 2001 )

United States v. Rodriguez-Guzman , 506 F.3d 738 ( 2007 )

United States v. Gomez-Hernandez , 680 F.3d 1171 ( 2012 )

United States v. Marco Gonzalez-Valerio, AKA Marcos Valerio,... , 342 F.3d 1051 ( 2003 )

Rivera-Cuartas v. Holder , 605 F.3d 699 ( 2010 )

United States v. Cosme Medina-Maella , 351 F.3d 944 ( 2003 )

United States v. Esly Pereira-Salmeron , 337 F.3d 1148 ( 2003 )

United States v. Medina-Villa , 567 F.3d 507 ( 2009 )

Jose Ramon-Sepulveda v. Immigration and Naturalization ... , 743 F.2d 1307 ( 1984 )

Rahmatullah Afridi v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General , 27 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 695 ( 2006 )

United States v. Valencia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103 ( 2010 )

View All Authorities »