Case Explained: JESUS ADAME GARCIA V. TODD BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 The ninth-circuit held that a conviction under California Penal Code § 288.2(b) for distributing harmful matter to a minor with the purpose of seducing the minor is categorically a “crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Because that conviction made the petitioner removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal, the court upheld the BIA’s affirmance of the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation. The court reviewed the issue de novo and applied the categorical approach, looking to the elements of the state offense rather than the petitioner’s actual conduct. Relying on Leon-Briviesca v. Blanche, the court said the generic federal definition of child abuse requires at least criminal negligence and conduct that places a minor in a situation likely to produce harm; actual injury is not required. The court concluded § 288.2(b) fits that definition because it requires knowing and intentional conduct directed at a minor and the transmission of “harmful matter” for sexual purposes. The court rejected arguments that the statute was overbroad because it supposedly covers conduct without actual injury, consensual sexual communications between older minors, communications with someone only believed to be a minor, or communications the minor never receives. On those points, the court emphasized both California law recognizing the harm inherent in such conduct and the lack of any realistic probability that California would apply the statute in the broader ways the petitioner proposed. The practical result is that the petition for review was denied, the BIA’s order stands, and the denial of cancellation of removal remains in place. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.