Ireneo P. Parrilla v. Alberto R. Gonzales , Attorney General

*1040 Opinion by Judge GOULD; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERNANDEZ.

Ireneo Parrilla petitions -for 'review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA determined that Parrilla was ineligible for cancellation pursuant bo 8- U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes under Washington Revised Code section 9.68A.090 was an aggravated felony that met the definition of “sexual abuse of a minor.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A). Although we hold that section 9.68A.090 did not categorically proscribe “sexual abuse of a minor,” the government provided an information, a guilty plea and a Certification for Determination of Probable Cause that allow us to conclude, under the modified categorical approach, that Parrilla committed an offense rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), Femandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585 (9th Cir.2005), and we deny the petition for review.

I

Ireneo Parrilla, a citizen of the Philippines, entered the United States on an H-1A non-immigrant…

concurring and dissenting:

In my view, Washington Revised Code § 9.68A.090 categorically prohibited sexual *1045 abuse of a minor within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A). That is, in my opinion, the Washington courts have placed a sufficiently narrowing construction on what might otherwise have been an overbroad statute for our purposes. See State v. McNallie, 120 Wash.2d 925 , 846 P.2d 1358, 1364 (1993); State v. Wissing, 66 Wash.App. 745 , 833 P.2d 424, 429 (1992); State v. Luther, 65 Wash.App. 424 , 830 P.2d 674, 675-76 (1992).

In addition, because, as the above cases indicate, Washington law requires that communication be for the purpose of actually involving a child in sexual misconduct, I do not believe that giving information about an abortion, unlawful or not, or making pornographic photography visible to the public, or allowing entry to an erotic performance business comes' within the meaning of communication with a minor for immoral purposes.

Thus, I do not agree with parts II A and B of the majority opinion, and dissent in that respect. However, I do concur in the remainder of the opinion and in the result.

Therefore, with the exception noted, I concur in…

414 F.3d 1038 Ireneo P. PARRILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES * , Attorney General, Respondent. No. 03-74010. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 11, 2005. Filed July 11, 2005. Antonio Salazar, Robert H. Chavez, Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Salazar Law Office, Seattle, WA, for the petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Bryan S. Beier, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. Acp-oqu-bce. Before FERDINAND F. FERNANDEZ, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Gould; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Fernandez. GOULD, Circuit Judge. 1 Ireneo Parrilla petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA determined that Parrilla was ineligible for cancellation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii) because his conviction for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes…