§ 19.88 (B)
For more text, click "Next Page>"
(B) Sexual Intent. Giving a child a spanking with intent to punish may involve contact with the buttocks, but should not be considered sexual abuse of a minor. In United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, the Fifth Circuit found that the offense of indecent exposure was sexual abuse of a minor because it requires sexual arousal or gratification as its purpose. In Parrilla v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit found that a conviction for communicating with a minor for immoral purposes was not necessarily an aggravated felony sexual abuse of a minor offense, since the term “immoral purpose” includes providing information on how to obtain an unlawful abortion. The Eleventh Circuit similarly requires “a perpetrator’s physical or nonphysical misuse or maltreatment of a minor for a purpose associated with sexual gratification.” The BIA, in Matter of Rodriguez-Rodriguez, suggested that the actor must knowingly commit the offense.
The First Circuit has suggested, on the other hand, that a sexual intent is not necessary to trigger deportation. The court noted that 18 U.S.C. § 2246 includes sexual acts and contact committed with intent to “abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” The same is true under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a)(9). Counsel may wish to point out that the BIA did not adopt 18 U.S.C. § 3509 as a definition, but only a guide as to what types of acts constitutes sexual abuse of a minor.
 United States v. Zavala-Sustaita, 214 F.3d 601 (5th Cir. 2000).
 Parrilla v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. July 11, 2005).
 Id. at 1043.
 United States v. Padilla-Reyes, 247 F.3d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that a conviction of violating Florida Statute § 800.04 constitutes sexual abuse of a minor) (emphasis supplied).
 Matter of Rodriguez-Rodriguez, 22 I. & N. Dec. 991, 992-993 (BIA 1999).
 Emile v. INS, 244 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 2001).
 18 U.S.C. § 2246(3) (emphasis supplied).