Rangel-Perez v Lynch

Rangel-Perez appealed the immigration board’s determination that his Utah misdemeanor conviction for unlawful sexual activity with a minor was an aggravated felony making him ineligible for cancelation of removal. The panel reversed. It first held that the Board of immigration Appeals has never adopted binding precedent establishing what men’s rea element must be part of a state sex crime conviction for the conviction to be for aggravated sexual abuse of a minor. It also held that state sex crimes must have at least a knowing mens rea element because circuit precedent looks to federal law for generic elements when federal criminal law on the subject exists and both federal statues on the subject require a knowing mens rea and further held the statute relied upon by the government is procedural which does not even set out elements. Applying here, the panel held that Utah’s unlawful sexual actively statue is a strict liability offense and thus is not an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. The case was remanded for further