Opinion by Judge REINHARDT; Dissent by Judge BYBEE.
ORDER
The dissent is amended to replace the citation to Wooten v. Superior Court on 2409 of the slip opinion with the following: Wooten v. Superior Court, 113 Cal.Rptr.2d 195 (Cal.Ct.App.2001) (setting aside an information charging two individuals for pimping and pandering where defendants hired women to perform sexual acts on each other and not customers);
OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
I.
Once again we face the question of what is moral turpitude: a nebulous question that we are required to answer on the basis of judicially established categories of criminal conduct. Although that may not be a satisfactory basis for answering such a question, it is the role to which we are limited by precedent as a court of law. Furthermore, any answer based on other considerations would in all probability be unacceptable to one or another segment of society and could well divide residents of red states from residents of blue, the old from the young, neighbor from neighbor, and even males from females. There is simply no overall agreement on many issues of morality in contemporary society.
Morality is not a concept that courts can define by judicial decrees, and even less can it be defined by fiats issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, to whose decisions the courts must give great deference. Yet, for the purpose of our immigration laws we are required to follow those determinations and to start by applying categories of offenses that the judiciary or the Board members appointed by the Attorney General have deemed morally turpitudinous in all of their applications. We call this the categorical approach. How sensible those decisions are and how close to rational concepts of morality they [1128]*1128may come can be seen by considering one of the offenses involved in the case before us. While under our law numerous felonies are deemed not to be morally turpitudinous, all acts of petty theft automatically qualify for that label and the drastic legal consequences that may follow. As some in today’s society might say, and with good reason, “Go figure.”
II.
Victor Ocegueda Núñez appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision ordering him removed to Mexico. The BIA determined that Ocegueda had been convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude and that he was thus statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(B). Because we conclude that indecent exposure under § 314 of the California Penal Code is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude, we grant the petition and remand.
III. Factual and Procedural Background
Victor Ocegueda Núñez (“Ocegueda”),1 a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in March 1993, at the age of 15. While in the United States, he met and married his wife, a U.S. citizen, with whom he has three U.S. citizen children. On June 30, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against him on the ground that he was present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted or paroled. He conceded removability, but applied for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l), on the basis that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his wife and children.
On September 15, 2004, one day before the hearing on Ocegueda’s application for cancellation was to be held, the government filed a motion to pretermit. It argued that Ocegueda was statutorily ineligible for cancellation because he had been convicted of two crimes of moral turpitude during the past ten years: petty theft in 1995 and indecent exposure in 2003. The government’s only evidence of the petty theft conviction was an FBI Report indicating that Ocegueda had been arrested and charged with petty theft on May 25, 1995. The Report did not indicate the disposition of the charge. Although Ocegueda’s counsel was aware of the indecent exposure conviction, the motion to pretermit was apparently the first she had heard of Ocegueda’s 1995 arrest for petty theft. A single conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is not a statutory bar to cancellation of removal if the maximum penalty does not exceed one year’s imprisonment, and if the individual is sentenced to six months or less. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). Two convictions, however, render an alien ineligible for cancellation. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(C).
Immediately after the government filed its motion to pretermit, Ocegueda filed an emergency motion to continue the hearing. He argued that he needed time to establish: (1) that indecent exposure was not a crime involving moral turpitude, and (2) that he had not actually been convicted of the petty theft offense. The IJ denied the motion.
At the September 16 hearing, the IJ questioned Ocegueda about the petty theft charge. He admitted that he had been arrested after a store security guard accused him of stealing a pair of pants and that he had subsequently appeared in court and paid a $100 fine. The IJ concluded that this testimony sufficed to establish a prior conviction for petty theft. The IJ determined that both petty theft [1129]*1129and indecent exposure are crimes of moral turpitude and that Ocegueda was statutorily ineligible for cancellation on the basis of the two convictions. The IJ then concluded the hearing, without hearing any of Ocegueda’s evidence that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen family.
Oeedgueda appealed to the BIA. He argued that indecent exposure was not a crime of moral turpitude, and that the IJ’s denial of his motion for a continuance violated Due Process. He did not contest the classification of petty theft as a crime of moral turpitude. The BIA affirmed the IJ, concluding that indecent exposure, the offense proscribed by California Penal Code § 314, was also such a crime. It did not address the Due Process issue or the petty theft conviction except to agree with the IJ that Ocegueda’s two convictions for crimes of moral turpitude made him statutorily ineligible for cancellation.
On appeal, Ocegueda raises two challenges to the BIA’s decision. First, he argues that indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude. Second, he argues that his Due Process rights were violated because he never had an opportunity to respond to the government’s motion to pretermit. Because we agree that California Penal Code § 314 covers a broader range of offenses than the generic definition of crimes of moral turpitude, we hold that indecent exposure is not categorically such a crime. Accordingly, we need not reach the Due Process question.
IV. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
Whether a crime involves moral turpitude is a question of law that we have jurisdiction to review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review the BIA’s interpretation of the statute of conviction de novo. Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903, 911 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). The BIA’s conclusion that a particular crime does or does not involve moral turpitude is subject to different standards of review depending on whether the BIA issues or relies on a published decision in coming to its conclusion. If it does either, we accord Chevron deference. Id. If it does neither, we defer to its conclusion to the extent that it has the “power to persuade.” Id. at 909 (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).
V. Analysis
To determine if a crime involves moral turpitude, we first apply the categorical approach. Nicanor-Romero v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir.2008), overruled on other grounds by Marmolejo-Campos, 558 F.3d at 908-09. This requires us to compare the elements of the crime to the generic definition of moral turpitude and “decide whether the conduct proscribed in the statute is broader than, and so does not categorically fall within, this generic definition.” Id. (quoting Huerta-Guevara v. Ashcroft, 321 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir.2003)). In making this determination, we must find “a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition” of moral turpitude. Id. at 1004 (quoting Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 193, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007)). This realistic probability can be established by showing that, in at least one other case, “the state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner....” Id. at 1004-05 (relying on one case to establish a realistic probability); see also Matter of Silva-Trevino, 24 I. & N. Dec. 687, 708 (2008) (same).2
If the crime does not qualify under the categorical approach, we apply the [1130]*1130modified categorical approach and look to documents within the record of conviction to see whether the conviction in the particular case involved moral turpitude. However, because the only information before the IJ was the fact of conviction, Ocegueda’s conviction of indecent exposure can qualify as a crime of moral turpitude on the record before us only if it so qualifies under the categorical approach.
A. Elements of § 314
California’s indecent exposure statute reads as follows:
Every person who willfully and lewdly ... [e]xposes his person, or the private parts thereof, in any public place, or in any place where there are present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby ... is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Cal.Penal Code § 314(1).
The BIA correctly identified the elements of § 314. The provision prohibits: (1) sexually motivated exposure of one’s private parts; (2) in a public place or a place where others are present. With respect to the mens rea element, California courts require “proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the actor not only meant to expose himself, but intended by his conduct to direct public attention to his genitals for purposes of sexual arousal, gratification, or affront.” In re Smith, 7 Cal.3d 362, 102 Cal.Rptr. 335, 497 P.2d 807, 810 (1972); see also People v. Archer, 98 Cal.App.4th 402, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 783, 786 (2002) (holding that “sexual” modifies “arousal,” “gratification”, and “affront”).
B. Generic definition of “moral turpitude”
We have previously discussed at some length the inherent ambiguity of the phrase “moral turpitude” and the consistent failure of either the BIA or our own court to establish any coherent criteria for determining which crimes fall within that classification and which crimes do not.3 [1131]*1131See, e.g., Marmolejo-Campos, 558 F.3d at 909 (“‘[Mjoral turpitude’ is perhaps the quintessential example of an ambiguous phrase.”); id. at 921 (Berzon, J., dissenting) (“[Tjhe BIA’s precedential case law regarding the meaning of the phrase ‘crime involving moral turpitude’ ... is a mess of conflicting authority.”); Nicanor-Romero, 523 F.3d at 997-99 (summarizing Ninth Circuit law on moral turpitude and recognizing that “[w]e have not relied on a consistent or easily applied set of criteria” to identify crimes of moral turpitude). Our definition tells us only that crimes of moral turpitude are crimes that involve either fraud or “base, vile, and depraved” conduct that “shock[s] the public conscience.” Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063, 1074-75 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc) (Reinhardt, J., concurring for the majority) (internal quotation marks removed).
Absent consistent or logical rules to follow as we determine whether a crime (other than one involving fraud) involves moral turpitude, our most useful guidance often comes from comparing the crime with others that we have previously deemed morally turpitudinous. See Navarro-Lopez, 503 F.3d at 1075 (Reinhardt, J, concurring for the majority) (“Under our current test for moral turpitude, we compare a crime’s depravity with that of crimes we have previously determined to be base, vile, and depraved.... ”). A review of BIA and Ninth Circuit precedent reveals that non-fraudulent crimes of moral turpitude almost always involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affects a protected class of victim.4
See, e.g., In re Lopez-Meza, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1188, 1193 (BIA 1999) (identifying [1132]*1132“murder, rape, robbery, kidna[p]ping, voluntary manslaughter, some involuntary manslaughter offenses, aggravated assaults, mayhem, theft offenses, spousal abuse, child abuse, and incest” as crimes of moral turpitude); Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2009) (explaining that assault is not generally a crime of moral turpitude unless it involves either intentional infliction of serious harm or infliction of harm on a protected class of victim); Marmolejo-Campos v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir.2007) (D.W. Nelson, J., dissenting), reheard in banc, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir.2009) (citing cases in which the BIA and Ninth Circuit determined that burglary, assault and battery, malicious mischief, alien smuggling, assault with a deadly weapon, indecency, rioting, and money laundering are not crimes of moral turpitude).
This is no less true when it comes to sexual offenses. We have held that the following sex-related crimes are categorically crimes of moral turpitude: “lewd and lascivious conduct toward a child,” Schoeps v. Carmichael, 177 F.2d 391, 394 (9th Cir.1949); incest, Gonzalez-Alvarado v. INS, 39 F.3d 245, 246 (9th Cir.1994); knowing possession of child pornography, United States v. Santacruz, 563 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir.2009); and communication with a minor for immoral purposes, Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2007). We have also recognized that rape is categorically a crime of moral turpitude. Navarro-Lopez, 503 F.3d at 1075 (Reinhardt, J, concurring for the majority). These crimes universally involve either actual infliction of harm or a protected class of victim; most often a combination of the two. In fact, never without the presence of at least one of these factors have we deemed a sexual offense to involve moral turpitude.
If we search far enough back into the case law of the BIA and other circuits, it is true that we find decisions holding that conduct that is “shocking],” not by virtue of its impact upon victims, but by virtue of its incompatibility with contemporary sexual attitudes is, on that basis alone, “morally turpitudinous.” At various times, the BIA and the courts have labeled as morally turpitudinous such offenses as consensual oral sex, Matter of Leyva, 16 I. & N. Dec. 118 (BIA 1977), consensual anal sodomy, Velez-Lozano v. INS, 463 F.2d 1305 (D.C.Cir.1972), and “overt and public homosexual activity” Matter of Alfonzo-Bermudez, 12 I. & N. Dec. 225 (BIA 1967). These cases remind us that private, consensual homosexual conduct, which the Supreme Court held to be constitutionally protected in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), was not so long ago deemed “base and depraved” and a crime of moral turpitude in some courts. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 55 Ala.App. 436, 316 So.2d 362, 363-64 (1975) (“[W]e have no hesitancy whatever in arriving at the conclusion that a crime that consists of sexual relations between persons of the same sex ... involves moral turpitude.... The practice of sodomy is inherently inimical to the general integrity of the human person, and [i]s clearly an offense involving moral turpitude ....”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Since these older cases were decided, the fluid boundaries of our nebulous “moral turpitude” standard have moved away from the rigid imposition of austere moral values on society as a whole and substantially in the direction of affording tolerance and individual liberty to those whose moral attitudes differ from the contemporary majority’s. Today, consensual sexual conduct among adults may not be deemed “base, vile, and depraved” as a matter of law simply because a majority of people happen to disapprove of a particular practice. Indeed, as with all crimes, if the conduct at issue were not offensive to at [1133]*1133least a majority, there would be no reason to prohibit it and thus render it a criminal act. More is required for moral turpitude. See Navarro-Lopez, 503 F.3d at. 1071 (holding that a definition of moral turpitude that encompassed all criminal conduct would be overbroad and contrary to the intent of Congress).
C. § 314 and the Generic Definition of Moral Turpitude
We now turn to the question whether all of the conduct proscribed by § 314 falls within our generic definition of moral turpitude. The BIA concluded that indecent exposure under § 314 is categorically a crime of moral turpitude, which means that it must have found the answer to our question to be, yes. The BIA reached this conclusion in an unpublished opinion that does not rely on prior precedential decisions.5
Therefore, we will defer to its determination only to the extent that it has the “power to persuade.” Here, we can dispose of that question quickly. As the Supreme Court stated in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944), deference should be given according to the “thoroughness evident in [the agency’s] consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” See also Marmolejo-Campos, 558 F.3d at 909. The BIA’s one-paragraph analysis rests entirely on the ipse dixit statement that because § 314 requires a sexual motivation, it is a crime of moral turpitude. We do not find the BIA’s cursory, conclusory analysis in any way persuasive and therefore do not defer to its conclusion with respect to the morally turpitudinous nature of § 314.
California’s indecent exposure statute criminalizes a range of conduct that offends the sensibilities of many, and perhaps most, people. We conclude that it does not, however, categorically meet the federal standard for moral turpitude. Some of the behavior that may be punished under the California statute would certainly qualify as morally turpitudinous, but that is not the question before us. Here we must determine whether the full range of conduct prohibited by the statute falls within the definition of that term. The answer to that question is no.
We start by recognizing one point that does not appear to be in dispute. Exposing oneself in a public place is not necessarily either “lewd” (as required by § 314) or “base, vile and depraved” (as required by our traditional definition of moral turpitude). For example, as the BIA and the California courts appear to agree, a sunbather who removes all his clothes to tan on an unoccupied public beach and wakes to find himself surrounded by offended beachgoers has done nothing either lewd or depraved and thus is neither in violation of § 314 nor guilty of a morally turpitudinous act. See Smith, 102 Cal.Rptr. 335, 497 P.2d at 810. Similarly, the California courts have indicated that they would not uphold a § 314 conviction for urinating in public, because exposure motivated by the need to relieve oneself is not properly classified as “lewd.” Id. at 810 n. 4. Under § 314, it is the sexual intent with which the exposure occurs that [1134]*1134transforms it into an act that is criminal, rather than an act that is merely improper or inappropriate. Thus, the question we must next answer is whether, by limiting § 314 to “sexually motivated” exposure, California courts have limited it to conduct all of which can properly be described as morally turpitudinous.6 For the reasons we now discuss, the answer once more is no.
In a number of important respects, California courts have construed “sexual motivation” quite broadly. As one would expect, exposure is “sexually motivated” if it is done with the intent to sexually gratify the actor. However, “the statute ... also reaches the specific intent to create sexual arousal in those persons observing the defendant.” People v. Conway, 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 7, 162 Cal.Rptr. 877, 879 (1979) (emphasis added), partially disapproved of by Morris v. Municipal Court, 32 Cal.3d 553, 186 Cal.Rptr. 494, 652 P.2d 51, 58 n. 13 (1982); see also People v. Earle, 172 Cal.App.4th 372, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d 261, 277 (2009). Additionally, the statute is satisfied if a person acts for the purposes of “sexual affront,” which involves neither sexual gratification of the actor nor the viewer, but rather an intent on the part of the actor to “insult” or “offend” in a sexual way. See Archer, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d at 786-87. Finally, the statute’s requirement that there be “present other persons to be offended or annoyed thereby” is fulfilled when the exposure occurs in the presence of individuals who might in theory be offended by the conduct, even if, in actuality, they are not:
It is not the burden of the prosecution to prove that the observer was in fact offended by the conduct but only that the conduct was such that defendant should know that the observer “may be offended.” Although the distinction is a subtle one, it is significant. The thrust of this inquiry is the state of mind of defendant — whether he should know that his conduct may offend another. Whether the observer thereafter is offended thus has minimal evidentiary bearing upon defendant’s preceding state of mind.
People v. Rylaarsdam, 130 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 181 Cal.Rptr. 723, 728 (1982).7
The statute thus encompasses three quite different types of “sexually motivated” exposure. A person may be convicted under § 314 for exposing himself for the purposes of his own sexual gratification, for the purpose of sexual gratification of the viewer, or for the purpose of offending the viewer in a sexual way. As the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed:
[W]hile insult is a common feature of the paradigmatic indecent exposure [under [1135]*1135§ 314], it is not a necessary element of the crime. A purpose of affronting the victim may satisfy part of the mens rea, but it is not necessary; the crime is also complete if the defendant acts for purposes of his own or the victim’s (presumably imagined) arousal or gratification, whether or not he intends to cause affront or believes he is doing so.
Earle, 91 Cal.Rptr.3d at 277 (analyzing mental elements of § 314) (internal quotation marks removed); see also Cal. Jury Instr. 16.220 (2009) (stating that, to prove violation of § 314, government must show that the defendant exposed him or herself “with the specific intent to direct public attention to [his][her] genitals for the purpose of[his][her] own sexual arousal or gratification, or that of another or of sexually insulting or offending others”).
1. Exposure for sexual gratification
With respect to both mens rea and actus reus, § 314 in its first two manifestations — exposure with the intent to sexually gratify oneself or the viewer — is quite similar to the crime of “annoyfing] ... a[ ] child,” (defined as engaging in objectively irritating conduct toward an underage victim when motivated by an abnormal sexual interest in victim), which we recently held not to be categorically a crime of moral turpitude. Nicanor-Romero, 523 F.3d at 1000. Neither offense requires that the “victim” actually be harmed or even bothered by the offender’s conduct. Id. Nor does either require that the offender intend any harm; rather, in both cases, the statutory elements may be satisfied as long as the offender’s motivation was “sexual” and he should have known that his conduct may be offensive (in the case of indecent exposure) or irritating (in the case of annoying a child). We held that the crime of “annoy[ing] ... a[] child” is not a crime of moral turpitude, even though that crime does share one characteristic with other crimes we have found morally turpitudinous: a protected class of victim. Nicanor-Romero, 523 F.3d at 1002-03. Indecent exposure, in contrast, as interpreted by the California courts, does not categorically have anything in common with the type of crime we have normally held to involve moral turpitude. It can be committed without any intention of harming anyone, it need not result in actual harm, and it does not necessarily involve a protected class of victim. Thus, under Nicanor-Romero, § 314 would appear not to prohibit only conduct that is morally turpitudinous and thus does not categorically constitute a crime of moral turpitude. Indeed, as we now explain, “[California] courts in fact [have] applfied]” the statute to reach non-morally turpitudinous conduct. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815.
Because there is no requirement that the viewers actually be offended by the exposure, and because the purpose of the conduct may be the “sexual arousal or gratification” of the viewer, rather than the exposer, California courts have, under § 314, upheld convictions for nude dancing at bars. For example, in People v. Conway, the
defendant was a waitress and dancer in a beer bar. While she was clothed when serving beer, she was observed to undress and perform naked on a raised platform located along one wall of the barroom. She openly displayed her private parts to the nearby customers, paying most of her attention to those customers who placed money on the platform for defendant.
Conway, 162 Cal.Rptr. at 878.8 See also People ex rel. Hicks v. Sarong Gals, 27 [1136]*1136Cal.App.3d 46, 103 Cal.Rptr. 414, 415 (1972) (noting multiple arrests of dancers at a topless-bottomless bar for violating § 314).
Erotic, completely nude dancing is offensive to many people. It is not, however, so “base, vile, and depraved” that it shocks the conscience. As a plurality of the Supreme Court explained, “nude dancing ... is expressive conduct, although ... it falls only within the outer ambit of the First Amendment’s protection.” City of Erie, 529 U.S. at 289, 120 S.Ct. 1382. It would be odd indeed to hold that conduct that is entitled to some protection in order to keep our society free is also flatly “contrary to the societal duties we owe each other.”9 Navarro-Lopez, 503 F.3d at 1069. Nude dancing, moreover, is a prototypical victimless crime. Whatever one’s view of the merits of such conduct, it is simply not base, vile, and depraved. As with the conduct at issue in Rylaarsdam, see p. 1134 n. 7, supra, it may shock certain individuals but not those who patronize the establishment in order to see or take part in it. It does not cause them physical or psychological harm and it certainly does not shock their conscience.
2. Exposure for sexual affront
The application of the statute to nude dancing is sufficient to resolve this case in Ocegueda’s favor. Despite the ambiguity [1137]*1137of the term “moral turpitude,” it is as clear as can be that nude dancing lies outside its boundaries. However, in case any doubt remains, we need consider only that in its third manifestation — exposure with the intent to sexually offend the viewer— § 314 encompasses conduct that cannot under any reasonable definition of the term be classified as “moral turpitude.”
Both our court and the BIA have repeatedly held that simple assault and battery are not categorically crimes of moral turpitude. See Morales-Garcia, 567 F.3d at 1065. This is, in part, because they encompass “de minimus conduct or harm, such as offensive or provocative physical contact or insults, which is not ordinarily considered to be inherently vile, depraved, or morally reprehensible.” In re Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. 239, 241 (2007); see also Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1168-69 (9th Cir.2006) (holding that the crime of “knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult, or provoke” does not involve moral turpitude). Similarly, in another context — addressing the crime of property damage, rather than assault — we held that Washington’s “malicious mischief’ offense was not categorically a crime of moral turpitude because it encompassed the destruction of “as little as $250.00 of another’s property with an evil wish to annoy” and thus “extends to include pranksters with poor judgment.” Rodriguez-Herrera v. INS, 52 F.3d 238, 240 (9th Cir.1995).
Section 314, as interpreted by the California courts, also encompasses “offensive or provocative ... insults,” Solon, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 241, as well as the conduct of “pranksters with poor judgment.” Rodriguez-Herrera, 52 F.3d at 240. Two examples suffice to illustrate the point. In one recent case, the California Court of Appeal upheld the conviction under § 314 of a defendant who, in a fit of “road rage,” exposed his penis and yelled “suck [my] dick” at an adjacent driver. Archer, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d at 786-87. In the second case, the court upheld the conviction of a 12-year-old boy who pulled down his pants during class and showed his penis to two female classmates. People v. Lionel M., No. H031030, 2007 WL 2924052 (Cal.Ct.App. Oct. 9, 2007) (unpublished).10 On both occasions, the court found that § 314’s mental state requirement was satisfied because the defendant had acted with the purpose of “sexually insulting or offending” the viewer.11 The former de[1138]*1138fendant’s conduct was surely crass and the latter’s was just as obviously inappropriate. However, neither act could rationally be characterized as inherently base, vile and depraved.12 Compared to the other crimes we have deemed to involve moral turpitude, the defendants’ actions were relatively harmless. See supra Part V.B. The only difference between their acts and the provocative insults and tasteless pranks that we have previously held to be non-morally turpitudinous is the element of sexuality involved. But our society is past the point where transitory nudity or a brief reference to sex necessarily transforms an otherwise de minimus provocation into a morally turpitudinous offense. There are obviously circumstances under which unwanted, sexually motivated exposure would be highly threatening, intrusive, and psychologically damaging to viewers. However, as our two examples make clear, § 314 reaches far beyond such harmful conduct to encompass mere acts of provocation, bad taste, and failed humor. Although inappropriate and offensive, these acts are not “base, vile, and depraved,” nor do they shock the conscience.
Because nude dancers and partially exposed purveyors of “sexual” insults have been convicted under § 314, there is “a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply [the indecent exposure] statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of [moral turpitude].” Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815 (2007). Here the “state courts in fact did apply the statute in the special (nongeneric) manner for which [Ocegueda] argues.” Id. Indecent exposure is therefore not, categorically, a crime of moral turpitude. California’s statute, as interpreted by state court judges, has not been limited to conduct that can objectively be held to meet our standardless standard that governs moral turpitude.
VI.
Because indecent exposure as defined by Cal.Penal Code § 314, and as construed by California courts, is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude, the BIA erred in determining on the record before it that Ocegueda was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We therefore GRANT the petition and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.