Eduardo Javier Borjas Del Angel v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for**
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO JAVIER BORJAS DEL
ANGEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71949
Agency No. A096-974-074
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 29, 2012
Seattle, Washington
Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District
Judge.**
Eduardo Javier Borjas Del Angel petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) final order of removal. The BIA found him
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
removable as an aggravated felon, and he contends his conviction does not
categorically qualify as an aggravated felony.
This court uses two working definitions of the federal generic offense of
“sexual abuse of a minor.” United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103,
1107 (9th Cir. 2010). Under one of those definitions, sexual conduct with a minor
under age 14 is “per se abusive.” Id. The state statute under which Petitioner was
convicted was for sexual conduct with a minor between the ages of 12 and 14, and
hence qualifies as an aggravated felony under that definition.
We have repeatedly recognized that both definitions apply. See United
States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 513–16 (9th Cir. 2009); Pelayo-Garcia v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1010, 1013–14 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioner contends that we
should ignore this authority in favor of an earlier en banc decision employing the
other categorical definition in the circumstances of that case. Estrada-Espinoza v.
Mukasey, 546 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). There is no
inconsistency in our case law, however, and no authority to support Petitioner’s
proposition that an en banc decision trumps later panel opinions.
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --