Islas-Veloz v. Whitaker, No. 15-73120 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a final order of removal following the dismissal of petitioner's appeal by the BIA. Petitioner was convicted of communication with a minor for immoral purposes in violation of Revised Code of Washington 9.68A.090, and an IJ found that petitioner's conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years of admission to the United States. Therefore, petitioner was removeable under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(i).
The panel held that, in assessing the constitutional status of the phrase "crime involving moral turpitude," it was bound by the Supreme Court's decision in Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951), which held that the phrase was not unconstitutionally vague. The panel also held that the Supreme Court's more recent decisions in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), did not reopen inquiry into the constitutionality of the phrase. Furthermore, petitioner's alternate claim that communicating with a minor for immoral purposes was not a crime of moral turpitude was foreclosed by the panel's decision in Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2007).
Court Description: Immigration. Denying Antonio Islas-Veloz’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that Supreme Court and circuit precedent required rejecting Islas-Veloz’s contentions that: 1) the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” was unconstitutionally vague; and 2) his conviction for communication with a minor for immoral purposes in violation of Revised Code of Washington § 9.68A.090 is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude. The panel concluded that, in assessing the constitutional status of the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude,” it remains bound by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951), in which the Court held that the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” was not unconstitutionally vague. The panel also explained that Court’s more recent decisions in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), did not reopen inquiry into the constitutionality of the phrase. The panel further observed that this court has repeatedly echoed the holding in De George, noting that the court recently held in Martinez-De Ryan v. Sessions, 895 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2018), that the phrase is not unconstitutionally vague. The panel also concluded that this court’s precedent foreclosed Islas-Veloz’s alternate claim that his conviction ISLAS-VELOZ V. WHITAKER 3 for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes is not a crime of moral turpitude. Concurring, Judge W. Fletcher wrote that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Johnson and Dimaya should lead the panel, were it not bound by this court’s precedent in Martinez-De Ryan, to conclude that the phrase “crime of moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague when used as a basis for the removal of a noncitizen. Observing that this circuit acknowledges a distinction between fraud and non- fraud crimes involving moral turpitude, Judge W. Fletcher wrote that non-fraud cases comprise the great bulk of crimes involving moral turpitude today and that the definition of non-fraud crimes involving moral turpitude is hopelessly and irredeemably vague.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.