# Ireneo P. Parrilla v. Alberto R. Gonzales , Attorney General

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 11, 2005 · 414 F.3d 1038

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498170

## Case

- **Full name:** Ireneo P. PARRILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 11, 2005
- **Citations:** 414 F.3d 1038; 2005 WL 1606506
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Fernandez
- **Judges:** Fernandez, Tashima, Gould
- **Cited by:** 123 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498170

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that petitioner “explic- itly incorporat[ed] the CDPC into his guilty plea” by stating that he understood that the court would review the CDPC in determining whether there was a factual basis for his plea
- concluding that petitioner “explicitly incorporated] the CDPC into his guilty plea” by stating that he understood that the court would review the CDPC in determining whether there was a factual basis for his plea
- holding that documents may be considered under the modified categorical approach “if specifically incorporated into the guilty plea or admitted by a defendant”
- applying Taylor in determining whether an alien’s state law conviction for child molestation constituted an aggravated felony under the INA such that the alien was ineligible for cancellation of removal

## Opinion text

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
In my view, Washington Revised Code § 9.68A.090 categorically prohibited sexual *1045 abuse of a minor within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(43)(A). That is, in my opinion, the Washington courts have placed a sufficiently narrowing construction on what might otherwise have been an overbroad statute for our purposes. See State v. McNallie, 120 Wash.2d 925 , 846 P.2d 1358, 1364 (1993); State v. Wissing, 66 Wash.App. 745 , 833 P.2d 424, 429 (1992); State v. Luther, 65 Wash.App. 424 , 830 P.2d 674, 675-76 (1992).
In addition, because, as the above cases indicate, Washington law requires that communication be for the purpose of actually involving a child in sexual misconduct, I do not believe that giving information about an abortion, unlawful or not, or making pornographic photography visible to the public, or allowing entry to an erotic performance business comes' within the meaning of communication with a minor for immoral purposes.
Thus, I do not agree with parts II A and B of the majority opinion, and dissent in that respect. However, I do concur in the remainder of the opinion and in the result.
Therefore, with the exception noted, I concur in the excellent majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9498170. Public record. Not legal advice.