Thread: Man who exposed himself may escape deportation

SFGate.com
Man who exposed himself may escape deportation
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 10, 2010

(02-10) 17:13 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The crime of indecent exposure isn't always "base, vile and depraved," a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday - a conclusion that enables a Bay Area man to fight his deportation to Mexico.

The 2-1 ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco allows Victor Ocegueda Nunez to return to immigration court for a hearing on the circumstances of his crime and on whether his deportation would cause extreme hardship to his wife and their three children, all U.S. citizens.

Ocegueda entered the United States illegally in 1993, at age 15. He was living in Fremont when he was convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure in 2003 and turned over to immigration authorities.

His current lawyer, Cheryl Franke, said Wednesday that the crime involved an encounter with a woman who accused Ocegueda of exposing himself to her.

Federal law allows illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least 10 years to contest deportation orders that would cause extreme hardship to their family. But deportation is automatic for those who have been convicted of two crimes of "moral turpitude," defined in court rulings as conduct that is "base, vile and depraved."

Immigration courts refused to consider Ocegueda's claims of family hardship and ordered him deported, citing his indecent exposure conviction and his 1995 conviction for shoplifting a pair of pants.

The appeals court agreed Wednesday that federal law classifies shoplifting as a crime of moral turpitude, but said the same isn't necessarily true of indecent exposure.

For example, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said in the majority opinion, the California Supreme Court in 1979 upheld a woman's indecent exposure conviction for erotic nude dancing at a bar. Such conduct is "offensive to many people," Reinhardt said, but it is "simply not base, vile and depraved."

Likewise, he said, the convictions of an angry motorist who exposed his genitals to another driver, and a 12-year-old boy who pulled down his pants during class - both upheld by state appeals courts - involved offensive sexual conduct but not moral depravity.

Whether indecent exposure in California involves moral turpitude must be determined case-by-case, said Reinhardt, joined by Judge Milan Smith. They said an immigration court must consider Ocegueda's family hardship claims if it decides that his 2003 crime did not demonstrate vileness or depravity.

In dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said all sexually motivated crimes defined by California law, including indecent exposure, are crimes of moral turpitude. He said the 1979 nude dancing ruling that Reinhardt cited was overturned by the state's high court in a later case, and topless-bottomless dancing is widely permitted in California communities.

As compared to a court's moral judgments, Bybee said, "California is in a far better position to determine those moral standards."

The ruling in Ocegueda Nunez vs. Holder can be viewed at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1BVK7A.DTL

The appeals court agreed Wednesday that federal law classifies shoplifting as a crime of moral turpitude, but said the same isn't necessarily true of indecent exposure.

So it is much better to pull off the clothes and let it all hang out, but prison for anyone who dares to snag a candybar?

As compared to a court's moral judgments, Bybee said, "California is in a far better position to determine those moral standards."

OMG! I am at a loss for words.

Court Spares Another Criminal From Deportation

Last Updated: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:40pm

An illegal immigrant convicted in the U.S. of two separate crimes has been spared deportation by a federal appellate court that determined the violations aren’t serious enough to send the man back to his native Mexico.

The ruling marks the second time in a week that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overrules both an immigration judge and the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals to rescue a criminally convicted thug from deportation. A few days ago the abhorrently liberal court ruled that a violent felon cannot be deported because tattooed criminals like him are often harassed by gangs and police in his native El Salvador.

An immigration judge and the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, had both denied that illegal alien’s ridiculous tattoo petition, citing his failure to prove that he faced torture in his native country.

This latest case involves a Mexican illegal immigrant (Victor Ocegueda Nunez) in California who was actually deported years ago but never the less remained in the U.S. He has twice been convicted of crimes— theft in 1995 and indecent exposure in 2003—and has three U.S.-born children (“anchor babiesâ€

Am I missing something here? Isnt there a real big difference between an erotic dancer and a flasher? Customers willingly go to see an erotic dancer. And the event takes place in a bar or club where the clients know there is erotic dancing...so it is their choice to go in or not. Flashers, on the other hand, are forcing themselves on a unwilling person. Isnt that a form of rape?

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-4919--0-0.html

Treason!