United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000) (applying categorical approach, and definitions of sexual and abuse to determine whether offense is "sexual abuse of a minor" aggravated felony). &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspThe Fifth Circuit applies a categorical approach in determining whether an offense constitutes a "sexual abuse of a minor" aggravated felony. In U.S. v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000), an illegal reentry case, the Court analyzed a conviction under Tex. Penal Code 21.11(a)(2) (punishing someone who "exposes his anus or any part of his genitals, knowing the child [under 17] is present, with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person"). "[W]e employ a categorical approach, considering whether the elements of a 21.11(a)(2) offense describe 'sexual abuse of a minor' rather than whether Zavala's specific conduct constituted 'sexual abuse of a minor'." Id. at 602 (citing Lopez-Elias v. Reno, 209 F.3d 788, 791 (5h Cir. 2000) and Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599-602 (1990)). &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspThe Zavala Court refused to read the phrase "sexual abuse of a minor" narrowly, but in determining whether the best ordinary, contemporary, and common reading of the phrase encompassed the Texas offense at issue, the Court read each word of the phrase in isolation. It noted dictionary definitions of "sexual" as "of, pertaining to, affecting, or characteristic of sex, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions" and of "abuse" as, "inter alia, to use wrongly or improperly" or "to hurt or injure by maltreatment". Id. at 604. The Court held that the Texas offense fell within "sexual abuse of a minor", finding that it is "sexual" because it requires sexual arousal or gratification as its purpose, and that it's abusive because it requires exposure with knowledge of the child's presence, and therefore wrongly and improperly using and harming the minor. Id. Thanks to Marianne C. Yang for this analysis.