Valdez-Camacho

concurring.

The majority takes too expansive a view of the modified categorical approach by taking account of things other than “the charging documents in conjunction with the plea agreement, the transcript of a plea proceeding, or the judgment to determine whether the defendant pled guilty” to an aggravated felony. 1 I think (though there is room for doubt) the authorities we must follow would lead to the same result under the categorical approach, so I am concurring rather than dissenting.

. United States v. Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir.2002) (enbanc).

MEMORANDUM *

Sijifredo Valdez-Camaeho petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) ordering him removed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (a)(2)(A)(iii), which makes an alien removable for having committed an aggravated felony. “Aggravated felony” is defined under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A) to include “sexual abuse of a minor.” Valdez-Camacho argues that he has not been convicted of an “aggravated felony” under § 1101(a)(43)(A).

Under the “categorical approach” laid out in Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 , 110 S.Ct. 2143 , 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), “[t]he crime defined by [§ 261.5(c) ] qualifies as ‘sexual abuse of a minor’ and hence an aggravated felony if and only if the full range of conduct covered by it falls within the meaning of that term.” United States v. Baron-Medina, 187 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotations and citation omitted). “If the state statute is over-inclusive, meaning that conduct that does and does not qualify as an aggravated felony is criminalized, we analyze the statute under a modified categorical approach.” Ruiz-Morales v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1219, 1222 (9th Cir.2004) (quotation and citation omitted). Under…