Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions
Reference: 16-54
Issue: Immigration
Term: 2016
Important Dates
Argued: February 27, 2017
Decided: May 30, 2017
Outcome
United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed
Vote
8-0 to reverse
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan


Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions is a case argued during the October 2016 term of the U.S. Supreme Court. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. On May 30, 2017, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.

In this case, the court held that a California statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse with a minor—where a minor is defined in the statute as a person under the age of 18—did not subject Esquivel-Quintana, a lawful immigrant, to removal from the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires the victim to be under 16 years old.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: The Immigration and Nationality Act defines sexual abuse of a minor as an aggravated felony and subjects individuals convicted of that crime to possible removal from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) interpreted a California law criminalizing unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor as constituting sexual abuse of a minor under federal law and proceeded to remove the petitioner from the United States pursuant to his conviction in a California court.
  • The issue: Did the BIA err when it categorized a California law criminalizing unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor as sexual abuse of a minor under federal law?
  • The outcome: On May 30, 2017, the court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.


    • In brief: Juan Esquivel-Quintana, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in 2009. The U.S. government held that conviction constituted an aggravated felony under federal immigration law and proceeded to remove Esquivel-Quintana from the United States. An immigration law judge (IJ) ordered Esquivel-Quintana removed from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2017.

    You can review the Sixth Circuit's opinion here.[1]

    Click on the tabs below to learn more about this Supreme Court case.

    Case

    Background

    In 2000, Juan Esquivel-Quintana was admitted as a lawful permanent resident to the United States. In 2009, Esquivel-Quintana pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor in California. The statute under which he was convicted defined unlawful sexual intercourse as "an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a 'minor' is a person under the age of 18 years and an “adult” is a person who is at least 18 years of age." Esquivel-Quintana was 20 years old at the time of his offense and had consensual intercourse with his girlfriend, who was 16 years old at the time. According to the California law, "any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony." Upon entering his plea, Esquivel-Quintana was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years' probation. Subsequent to his incarceration, Esquivel-Quintana moved from California to Michigan.[1][2]

    Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) in most instances must be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43) included sexual abuse of a minor as an aggravated felony at the time of Esquivel-Quintana's conviction. The U.S. government proceeded to initiate removal proceedings in Michigan against Esquivel-Quintana. Prior to Esquivel-Quintana's conviction on the California charge, in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that a conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse of a minor under the California law did not constitute sexual abuse of a minor under federal law and was not, therefore, an aggravated felony. In his hearing before a federal immigration judge (IJ) in Michigan, Esquivel-Quintana petitioned the judge to adopt the Ninth Circuit's reasoning, but the IJ refused and accepted the government's position that because removal proceedings were within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit the ruling of the Ninth Circuit was non-binding. The IJ subsequently ordered Esquivel-Quintana removed from the United States. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.[1][2]

    On appeal before the Sixth Circuit, the court, relying on the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, held that the BIA's interpretation of sexual abuse of a minor should be afforded Chevron deference and subsequently affirmed the BIA's decision.[1]

    Petitioner's challenge

    Juan Esquivel-Quintana, the petitioner, challenged the Sixth Circuit's holding that his conviction under California law for unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor constituted an aggravated felony under federal law such that his conviction mandated his removal from the United States.

    Certiorari granted

    On July 11, 2016, Juan Esquivel-Quintana, the petitioner, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The U.S. Supreme Court granted Esquivel-Quintana's certiorari request on October 28, 2016. Argument in the case was held on February 27, 2017.

    Arguments


    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Under federal law, the Model Penal Code, and the laws of forty-three states and the District of Columbia, consensual sexual intercourse between a twenty-one-year-old and someone almost eighteen is legal. Seven states have statutes criminalizing such conduct.
    The question presented is whether a conviction under one of those seven state statutes constitutes the 'aggravated felony' of 'sexual abuse of a minor' under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act - and therefore constitutes grounds for mandatory removal."[3]


    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[4]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[5]

    Outcome

    Decision

    Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. In this case, the court held that a California statute criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse with a minor—where a minor is defined in the statute as a person under the age of 18—did not subject Esquivel-Santana, a lawful immigrant, to removal from the United States. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires the victim to be under 16 years old.[6]

    Opinion

    In his opinion for a unanimous court, Justice Thomas presented the court's categorical approach to cases such as Esquivel-Santana's before reviewing the relevant law. For the benefit of the reader's ease of reading, in-line citations used by Justice Thomas have been removed.[6]

    “

    Section 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) makes aliens removable based on the nature of their convictions, not based on their actual conduct. Accordingly, to determine whether an alien’s conviction qualifies as an aggravated felony under that section, we 'employ a categorical approach by looking to the statute ... of conviction, rather than to the specific facts underlying the crime.' Under that approach, we ask whether ' 'the state statute defining the crime of conviction' categorically fits within the ' 'generic' federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony.' In other words, we presume that the state conviction 'rested upon ... the least of th[e] acts' criminalized by the statute, and then we determine whether that conduct would fall within the federal definition of the crime. Petitioner’s state conviction is thus an 'aggravated felony' under the INA only if the least of the acts criminalized by the state statute falls within the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor.
    Because Cal. Penal Code §261.5(c) criminalizes 'unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator' and defines a minor as someone under age 18, the conduct criminalized under this provision would be, at a minimum, consensual sexual intercourse between a victim who is almost 18 and a perpetrator who just turned 21. Regardless of the actual facts of petitioner’s crime, we must presume that his conviction was based on acts that were no more criminal than that. If those acts do not constitute sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, then petitioner was not convicted of an aggravated felony and is not, on that basis, removable. ...
    We agree with petitioner that, in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the age of the participants, the generic federal definition of sexual abuse of a minor requires that the victim be younger than 16. Because the California statute at issue in this case does not categorically fall within that definition, a conviction pursuant to it is not an aggravated felony under §1101(a)(43)(A). ... The structure of the INA, a related federal statute, and evidence from state criminal codes confirm that, for a statutory rape offense to qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA based solely on the age of the participants, the victim must be younger than 16.[7]

    		”

    As a result of the court's opinion, the judgment of the Sixth Circuit was reversed.

    Concurring opinions

    There were no concurring opinions filed in this case.

    Dissenting opinions

    There were no dissenting opinions filed in this case.


    The opinion

    Filings

    The court granted Esquivel-Quintana's certiorari request on October 28, 2016.

    Merits filings

    Parties' briefs

    • Juan Esquivel-Quintana, the petitioner, filed a merits brief on December 16, 2016.

    Amicus curiae briefs

    The following groups filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioner, Juan Esquivel-Quintana:

    • Brief of the Immigration Defense Project et al.
    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
    • Brief of the National Immigrant Justice Center et al.

    Certiorari filings

    Parties' filings

    • Juan Esquivel-Quintana, the petitioner, filed a petition for certiorari on July 11, 2016.

    Amicus curiae filings

    The following group filed an amicus curiae brief in support of granting certiorari:

    • Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers


    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Juan Esquivel-Quintana v. Loretta E. Lynch, January 15, 2016
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 SCOTUSBlog, "Argument preview: Removal of an immigrant for 'sexual abuse of a minor,'" February 21, 2017
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, accessed February 23, 2017
    4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, argued February 27, 2017
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, argued February 27, 2017
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Supreme Court of the United States, Juan Esquivel-Quintana v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General, decided May 30, 2017
    7. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Esquivel-Quintana_v._Sessions&oldid=8891774"