Estrada-Espinoza v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “it is unnecessary to survey current criminal law to ascertain a federal [generic definition of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’] because Congress has already supplied it”
• explaining that Rodriguez-Rodriguez did not offer a particularized meaning of the generic offense necessary to perform a Taylor analysis
• explaining that “[w]ith-out defined elements, a' comparison of the state statute with the federally-defined generic offense is not possible”
• stating that “it is unnecessary to survey current criminal law to ascertain a federal [generic definition of ‘sexual abuse of a minor’] because Congress has already supplied it”
• noting that the BIA’s decision was a “single-judge, unpublished, non- precedential” decision
• noting that the BIA’s decision was a “single-judge, unpublished, non-precedential” decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).