The courts have held that the specific facts of the case will not be examined to assess whether a conviction falls within a ground of deportation in the specific case before the court.[62]  This would be an administrative burden, and would not be fair or equitable to the various defendants, convicted of identical statutory violations, whose individual circumstances might or might not be held to trigger deportation. 

[62] See, e.g., Velez-Lozano v. INS, 150 App. D.C. 214, 463 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1972);

Guerrero de Nodahl v. INS, 407 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1969); Rassano v. INS, 377 F.2d 971 (7th Cir. 1966); Burr v. INS, 350 F.2d 87 (9th Cir. 1965), cert. den., 383 U.S. 915, 86 S.Ct. 905 (1966); Wadman v. INS, 329 F.2d 812 (9th Cir. 1964); Giammario v. Hurney, 311 F.2d 285 (3d Cir. 1962); Hirsch v. INS, 308 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1962); De Lucia v. Flagg, 297 F.2d 58 (7th Cir. 1961), cert. den., 369 U.S. 837, 82 S.Ct. 867 (1962); United States ex rel. Sollazzo v. Esperdy, 285 F.2d 341 (2d Cir.), cert. den., 366 U.S. 905, 81 S.Ct. 1049 (1961); Bisaillon v. Hogan, 257 F.2d 435 (9th Cir.), cert. den. sub nom. Bisaillon v. Sureck, 358 U.S. 872, 79 S.Ct. 112 (1958); Tseung Chu v. Cornell, 247 F.2d 929 (9th Cir.), cert. den., 355 U.S. 892, 78 S.Ct. 265 (1957); Ablett v. Brownell, 240 F.2d 625, 99 App. D.C. 387 (D.C. Cir. 1957); United States ex rel. Giglio v. Neelly, 208 F.2d 337 (7th Cir. 1953); United States ex rel. McKenzie v. Savoretti, 200 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1952); United States ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F.2d 757 (2d Cir. 1933) (the court cannot go outside the record of conviction to determine whether in the particular instance the noncitizen’s conduct was immoral; the evidence upon which the verdict was rendered could not be considered; and the guilt of the defendant cannot be contradicted); United States ex rel. Meyer v. Day, 54 F.2d 336 (2d Cir. 1931); United States ex rel. Robinson v. Day, 51 F.2d 1022, 1023 (2d Cir. 1931) (the offense must “by its definition” necessarily involve moral turpitude, and a noncitizen cannot be deported on the basis of a conviction of an offense that does not automatically involve moral turpitude, merely because in the particular instance his actual conduct was immoral); United States ex rel. Mongiovi v. Karnuth, 30 F.2d 825 (D.N.Y. 1929); Matter of Pichardo, 21 I. & N. Dec. 330 (BIA 1996); Matter of Perez-Contreras, 20 I. & N. Dec. 615 (BIA 1992); Matter of Short, 20 I. & N. Dec. 136 (BIA 1989); Matter of Goodalle, 12 I. & N. Dec. 106 (BIA 1967); Matter of Abi-Rached, 10 I. & N. Dec. 551 (BIA 1964); Matter of W, 5 I. & N. Dec. 239 (BIA 1953).

Seventh Circuit

SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR - AGE OF THE VICTIM NEED NOT BE AN ELEMENT OF A SEX OFFENSE TO TRIGGER AGGRAVATED FELONY IN SEVENTH CIRCUIT RECORD OF CONVICTION - FACT OF VICTIMS AGE IN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRED TO CONVICT, IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR
Gattem v. Gonzalez, __ F.3d __, 2005 WL 1422373 (7th Cir. June 20, 2005) (misdemeanor solicitation to engage in a sexual act, in violation of Illinois law, 720 ILCS 5/11-14.1(a), is an aggravated felony, sexual abuse of a minor, offense for immigration purposes where the criminal complaint [and no other document] shows that the victim was under the age of 18)

Ninth Circuit

CONVICTION - RECORD OF CONVICTION - FACTUAL BASIS FOR PLEA - DEFENDANT'S MOTION
United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Dec. 16, 2005) (stipulated factual basis taken from defendant's California Penal Code 995 motion could be used by federal court to find that false imprisonment conviction involved violence; reliance on stipulated facts does not violate Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 601-02 (1990) (sentencing court may not inquire into facts underlying prior conviction) because the stipulation was tantamount to a plea agreement, which may be used to establish facts).