The Eighth Circuit has determined that Minnesota’s crime of third-degree criminal sexual conduct does not match the generic definition of rape. This is because the Minnesota crime includes digital or mechanical penetration. These are outside the generic definition of rape, highlighting some aspects of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.
Eighth Circuit Narrows ‘Rape’ Definition in Immigration Law
In a significant victory for non-citizens with prior criminal convictions, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled. They determined that the offense of Minnesota Third-Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct (CSC) does not categorically meet the federal immigration definition of “rape” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The nature of Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct becomes crucial in such analyses.
The federal definition of an aggravated felony—which triggers mandatory deportation or removal—includes the crime of “rape.” However, federal law does not explicitly define rape within the INA. Consequently, courts must apply a categorical approach. They compare the state statute of conviction (the Minnesota CSC law) against the generic, ordinary definition of rape.
The court found the Minnesota statute, specifically $\S$ 609.344, Subd. 1, to be overbroad. Crucially, the Minnesota law criminalizes a wider range of acts, including digital or mechanical penetration. The Eighth Circuit determined this falls outside the narrow, historical, and generic definition of federal “rape.” The generic definition, rooted in common law, is limited primarily to sexual intercourse (vaginal, anal, or oral penetration). This differs significantly from Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct nuances.
Impact of the Ruling
This ruling prevents the government from automatically using a Minnesota Third-Degree CSC conviction as an aggravated felony ground for removal based on the “rape” offense category. For individuals whose removal proceedings relied solely on this classification, the decision is a critical step toward relief. It potentially allows them to pursue defenses such as cancellation of removal or asylum/withholding of removal. These were previously barred in cases involving Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.
The case underscores the ongoing complexity of crimmigration law. Minor variations between state criminal statutes and generic federal definitions can have life-altering consequences for immigrants and lawful permanent residents. This decision sets binding precedent only within the Eighth Circuit, including states like Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. However, the ruling provides a powerful legal framework for other jurisdictions facing similar categorical challenges. It particularly touches on key aspects related to Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct.
