Practice Pointer1 Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Practice Pointer1 Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec Practice Pointer1 Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019) March 25, 2020 I. Introduction In Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019), the attorney general held that two or more convictions for driving under the influence (DUI)2 during the qualifying time period presumptively bar an applicant for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal (“non- LPR cancellation”) from proving good moral character under section § 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Applicants with such convictions now face a rebuttable presumption that they lack good moral character. This is the first time since 2005 that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) or the attorney general has issued a precedential decision on the good moral character requirement of non-LPR cancellation of removal.3 This practice pointer provides a background on Castillo-Perez, explains the good moral character requirement of non-LPR cancellation, and clarifies the practical implications of the decision. The practice pointer also suggests arguments limiting the decision’s scope and highlights some pitfalls in the attorney general’s reasoning that could be raised on appeal. 1 Copyright © 2020, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC). This advisory is intended for authorized legal counsel and is not a substitute for independent legal advice provided by legal counsel familiar with a client’s case. Counsel should independently confirm whether the law in their circuit has changed since the date of this advisory. The authors of this practice pointer are Khaled Alrabe, NIPNLG Staff Attorney; Cristina Velez, NIPNLG Senior Staff Attorney; and Michelle N. Mendez, Director of the Defending Vulnerable Populations Program at CLINIC. The authors would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable contributions to this advisory: Katherine M. Lewis, CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Consulting Attorney; Aimee Mayer-Salins, CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Staff Attorney; CLINIC’s Victoria Neilson, Defending Vulnerable Populations Managing Attorney; Rebecca Scholtz, CLINIC’s Defending Vulnerable Populations Senior Attorney; Denise Slavin, retired U.S. Immigration Judge. 2 Per footnote 1 of the decision, Castillo-Perez also pertains to other, similar types of convictions under state law like operating under the influence and driving while impaired, but does not apply to lesser included offenses that do not require proof of impairment, such as negligent driving. 3 See Matter of Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I&N Dec. 793 (BIA 2005). 1 II. Matter of Castillo-Perez On December 3, 2018, then Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker directed the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to refer to him for review an unpublished BIA decision that had found the respondent ineligible for non-LPR cancellation based in part on failure to show good moral character.4 On October 25, 2019, Attorney General William Barr issued Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 664 (A.G. 2019), holding as follows: 1. The INA’s “good moral character” standard requires adherence to the generally accepted moral conventions of the community, and criminal activity is probative of non-adherence to those conventions. 2. Evidence of two or more convictions for driving under the influence during the relevant period establishes a rebuttable presumption that a noncitizen lacks good moral character under INA § 101(f). 3. Because only noncitizens who possessed good moral character for a ten-year period are eligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the INA, such evidence also presumptively establishes that the noncitizen’s application for that discretionary relief should be denied. III. Good Moral Character Requirement for Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal Section 240A(b)(1) of the INA requires that an applicant for non-LPR cancellation demonstrate that he or she is a “person of good moral character” during the period “not less than ten years immediately preceding the date of such application.”5 The ten-year period needed for good moral character is calculated backward from the date on which the application finally is resolved by the immigration judge (IJ) or BIA.6 The INA does not define good moral character. Instead, it describes conduct or convictions that establish a lack of good moral character. An applicant for non-LPR cancellation cannot establish good moral character if he or she falls into one of the categories listed in INA § 101(f). Most of the categories refer to conduct or convictions that occurred during the ten-year period while a couple of categories refer to conduct or offenses that have happened at any time in the non-LPR cancellation applicant’s history. 4 Matter of Castillo-Perez, 27 I&N Dec. 495 (A.G. 2018). 5 INA § 240A(b)(1). 6 Matter of Ortega-Cabrera, 23 I&N Dec. 793, 798 (BIA 2005). Note that the calculation of the ten years for good moral character differs from the continuous physical presence calculation. For more information on non-LPR cancellation generally see ILRC, Non-LPR Cancellation of Removal (2018), https://www.ilrc.org/ sites/default/files/resources/non_lpr_cancel_remov-20180606.pdf; CLINIC, Practice Advisory: Non-Lawful Permanent Resident Cancellation of Removal Under INA § 240A(b) for DACA Recipients (2018), https://cliniclegal. org/resources/removal-proceedings/practice-advisory-non-lawful-permanent-resident-cancellation-removal. 2 The INA § 101(f) bars to establishing good moral character within the ten-year period include anyone who is or was within that period: • a habitual drunkard (INA § 101(f)(1)), • convicted of, or admitted to committing the elements of,7 a crime that would make him or her inadmissible (whether or not the individual is found to be inadmissible), pursuant to INA § 212(a)(2)(A) [crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT)8 or controlled substance violation9], (B) [conviction for two or more offenses with an aggregate sentence of five years or more], (C) [controlled substance traffickers and certain family members thereof], (D) [prostitution and unlawful commercialized vice] (INA § 101(f)(3), • engaged in “alien smuggling” as described in INA § 212(a)(6)(E) (whether or not found to be inadmissible) (INA § 101(f)(3), • coming to the United States to practice polygamy as described in INA § 212(a)(10)(A) (INA § 101(f)(3)), • an individual whose income is derived principally from illegal gambling activities (INA § 101(f)(4)), 7 To determine whether there must be conviction or the exact evidentiary standard, practitioners should consult the statute. For example, an individual who admits to having committed a crime of moral turpitude is inadmissible for conviction of a crime of moral turpitude under section 212(a)(2)(A), but there are rigid evidentiary requirements for such a finding. See Matter of K-, 7 I&N Dec. 594, 597-98 (BIA 1957) (stating that to sustain a ground of deportation under section 241(a)(1) of the INA, based on excludability under section 212(a)(9) as one who admits acts constituting the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, the noncitizen must have admitted all the elements of the crime involved and must have been furnished a definition of the offense in understandable terms, and similarly, where the charge is based on admission of the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, an adequate definition must be provided and all the elements of the offense, in addition to the legal conclusion, must be admitted); Matter of G-M-, 7 I&N Dec. 40 (BIA 1955) (holding that to sustain a finding of inadmissibility as one who has admitted acts constituting the essential elements of a crime involving moral turpitude, the noncitizen must have admitted all the elements of the crime involved and must have been furnished with a definition of the crime in comprehensible terms); see also 9 FAM 302.3-2(B)(4)(U) (explaining what constitutes a legally valid admission for purposes of INA § 212(a)(2)(A)); USCIS, Policy Manual, vol. 12, Part F, Ch. 2 § E, https://www.uscis.gov/policy- manual/volume-12-part-f-chapter-2#S-E. 8 Individuals who fall within the CIMT petty offense or juvenile offender exception found at INA § 212(a)(2)(A)(ii) would not be inadmissible and thus would not have a good moral character bar. However, while individuals with these convictions may not have a good moral character bar, they are likely to be barred from non-LPR cancellation eligibility if their conviction is a CIMT offense with a maximum potential sentence of 365 days or more. See INA § 240A(b)(1)(C) (providing that non-LPR cancellation of removal is available only if the applicant “has not been convicted of an offense under section 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3)”); Matter of Cortez, 25 I&N Dec. 301 (BIA 2010); Matter of Ortega-Lopez, 27 I&N Dec. 382, 397 (BIA 2018). 9 For good moral character purposes, there is one exception to the controlled substance offense ground found at INA § 212(a)(2)(A) for a single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. However, a non-LPR cancellation applicant would likely still be barred even for a conviction for simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana pursuant to the criminal convictions bar of INA § 240A(b)(1)(C). 3 • an individual who has been convicted of two or more gambling offenses (INA § 101(f)(5)), • an individual who has given false testimony for the purpose of obtaining any benefits under the INA (INA § 101(f)(6)), or • an individual who has been confined, as a result of a conviction, to a penal institution for an aggregate period of 180 days or more, regardless of whether the offense or offenses for which they have been confined were committed within or outside the required period (INA § 101(f)(7)).
Recommended publications
  • US Citizenship and Immigration Services
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service~ Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., MS 2090 Washington, DC 20529-2090 (b)(6) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Date: SEP 2 5 2014 Office: VERMONT SERVICE CENTER File: INRE: Self-Petitioner: PETITION: Petition for Immigrant Abused Spouse Pursuant to Section 204(a)(l)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1154(a)(l)(A)(iii) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: INSTRUCTIONS: Enclosed please find the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) in your case. This is a non-precedent decision. The AAO does not announce new constructions of law nor establish agency policy through non-precedent decisions. If you believe the AAO incorrectly applied current law or policy to your·case or if you seek to present new facts for consideration, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen, respectively. Any motion must be filed on a Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I- 290B) within 33 days of the date of this decision. Please review the Form I-290B instructions at http:l/www.uscis.gov/forms for the latest information on fee, filing location, and other requirements. See also 8 C.F.R. § 103.5. Do not file a motion directly with the AAO. Thank you, Ron Rosenberr~ -- Chief, Administrative Appeals Office www.uscis.gov (b)(6) NON-PRECEDENT DECISION Page 2 DISCUSSION: The Vermont Service Center director ("the director") denied the immigrant visa petition and the matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 4:17-Cv-00890 Document 55 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/18 Page 1
    Case 4:17-cv-00890 Document 55 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/18 Page 1 of 20 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT February 22, 2018 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS David J. Bradley, Clerk HOUSTON DIVISION REMILEKUN K. DAVIS, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-890 § JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, et al. § § Defendants. § MEMORANDUM AND OPINION In April 2014, Remilekun Davis filed a N-400 naturalization application, seeking naturalization based on his military service. Davis interviewed for naturalization in March 2015. The United States Citizen and Immigration Services determined that Davis was ineligible for naturalization because he failed to demonstrate good moral character. Davis administratively appealed the Service’s decision, which was denied on March 20, 2017. Davis sued, seeking judicial review in this court. The government moved for summary judgment on the ground that, as a matter of law, Davis cannot establish himself as a person of good moral character. (Docket Entry No. 46). Davis cross-moved for summary judgment on the same issue. (Docket Entry No. 48). Based on a careful consideration of the motions, the responses, and the reply, the administrative record, and the applicable law, Davis’s motion for summary judgment is denied and the government’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The reasons are set out below. I. Background A. Factual Background 1 Case 4:17-cv-00890 Document 55 Filed in TXSD on 02/22/18 Page 2 of 20 Davis’s history is unclear. He had changed his own accounts of his life frequently.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's Criminal Justice Professional Compliance Process, Revised June
    FLORIDA’S CRIMINAL JUSTICE Professional Compliance Process Produced by: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROFESSIONALISM GERALD M. BAILEY COMMISSIONER (Revised June 2013) Table of Contents Page Why a Disciplinary Process? ...........................................................................................1 Standards for Certification ...............................................................................................1 Commission Authority to Discipline ...............................................................................1-2 Employing Agency Investigation and Reporting .............................................................2 Commission Case Initiation and Development ................................................................2-3 Probable Cause Hearing and the Disciplinary Process ....................................................3 Felony Convictions or Pleas and Revocation ..................................................................3 Misdemeanor Convictions or Pleas and Revocation .......................................................4 Failure to Maintain “Good Moral Character” ..................................................................4-6 The Penalties for Misconduct ..........................................................................................6 Violations Resulting In Revocation .................................................................................7 Penalties for Specific Felony Acts/Violations ...................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Naturalization Screening Packet | December 2018 1
    Overview | December 2018 NATURLIZATION FIELD GUIDE Resources for Red Flag Screenings and Application Reviews By ILRC Attorneys I. Overview of the Notice to Appear Memo On June 28, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) issued a memorandum expanding the circumstances in which it will issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to applicants requesting immigration benefits.1 An NTA is the charging document that initiates removal proceedings. USCIS has always had the authority to issue NTAs to applicants who are removable. But this recent guidance represents a significant departure from prior USCIS practices in that it requires USCIS to issue an NTA in many circumstances, including certain cases involving fraud, criminal histories, and where the benefit is denied and the applicant is removable. The NTA Memo specifically mentions naturalization applications twice. First, it directs USCIS to issue an NTA “in all cases if the N-400 [naturalization application] has been denied on good moral character (GMC) grounds based on the underlying criminal offense and provided the [applicant] is removable.” 2 Second, it authorizes USCIS to issue an NTA pre- adjudication in certain circumstances when the applicant is deportable. This new guidance signals a dramatic expansion of the agency’s role in immigration enforcement, shifting away from its primary focus on determining eligibility for immigration benefits. II. Screening Naturalization Applicants It has always been important to screen naturalization applicants thoroughly to ensure that they are, in fact, eligible for naturalization, and to assess any potential issues that could cause them to denied or deported. The laws governing how and when someone is eligible to naturalize, and how and when someone is deportable have not changed.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigrants and Marijuana | May 2021 1
    Practice Advisory | May 2021 IMMIGRANTS AND MARIJUANA By Kathy Brady, Zachary Nightingale, and Matt Adams Table of Contents1 I. Overview: Immigrants and Legalized Marijuana .................................................................. 3 II. Federal and State Marijuana Laws ....................................................................................... 4 III. Removal Grounds and Good Moral Character Bars Triggered by Marijuana ..................... 5 A. Conviction ....................................................................................................................... 5 B. Admitting Commission of a State or Federal Drug Offense ........................................... 7 C. Immigration Authorities Gain “Reason to Believe” the Person Participated in Trafficking ............................................................................. 8 D. Lawful Employment in the Cannabis Industry ................................................................ 8 E. Finding of Addiction or Abuse ......................................................................................... 9 F. Only the Above Cause Inadmissibility ............................................................................. 10 IV. Defend Immigrants from Becoming Inadmissible for Admitting to Marijuana Conduct............................................................................................ 10 A. Inform the Client about the Law ...................................................................................... 10 B. Instruct the Client
    [Show full text]
  • All Those Rules About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude | June 2020 1
    Practice Advisory | June 2020 ALL THOSE RULES ABOUT CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE By Kathy Brady A “crime involving moral turpitude” (CIMT) is a technical term for a category of criminal offenses that can make a noncitizen deportable, inadmissible, and/or barred from relief, depending on a number of factors set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act. This advisory will summarize and discuss the various rules governing CIMTS: I. Overview: Deportability, Inadmissibility, Relief, and Conviction and Admission ......................................... 2 1. Seeking Admission: Inadmissibility Grounds ........................................................................................ 2 2. Already Admitted: Deportability Grounds .............................................................................................. 3 3. Various Bars to Relief ............................................................................................................................ 3 4. Immigration Definition of Conviction and Admission of Conduct ........................................................ 4 II. All Those Rules About Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude ............................................................................. 5 1. When Does One CIMT Trigger the CIMT Deportation Ground? ............................................................ 5 2. When Do Two or More CIMTs Trigger the CIMT Deportation Ground? ................................................ 8 3. When Does a CIMT Cause Inadmissibility? What is a Qualifying Admission
    [Show full text]
  • Attestation of Good Moral Character
    ATTESTATION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER _________________________________________________________ Employee/Applicant/Contractor/Volunteer Name: By signing this form, I affirm and attest that I meet the Moral Character requirements for employment as required pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, and Section 393.0655, Florida Statutes. _________________________________________________________ Provider/Employer Name: I have not been arrested with disposition pending or found guilty of regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendre (no contest) to or have been adjudicated delinquent and the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction for any of the offenses listed below. Criminal Offenses listed in section 435.04, F.S. (a) Section 393.135, relating to sexual misconduct (n) Section 787.025, relating to luring or enticing a with certain developmentally disabled clients and reporting child. of such sexual misconduct. (o) Section 787.04(2), relating to taking, enticing, or (b) Section 394.4593, relating to sexual misconduct removing a child beyond the state limits with criminal with certain mental health patients and reporting of such intent pending custody proceedings. sexual misconduct. (p) Section 787.04(3), relating to carrying a child (c) Section 415.111, relating to adult abuse, neglect, beyond the state lines with criminal intent to avoid or exploitation of aged persons or disabled adults. producing a child at a custody hearing or delivering the child to the designated person. (d) Section 777.04, relating to attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy to commit an offense listed in this (q) Section 790.115(1), relating to exhibiting firearms subsection.
    [Show full text]
  • Affidavit of Good Moral Character
    ATTESTATION OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER State of Florida County of LEON . I, _________________________________________________________ who, as an applicant for employment with, an employee of, a volunteer for, or (Candidate's Name) an applicant to volunteer with FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY SUMMER CAMPS, I affirm and attest under penalty of perjury that I meet the moral character requirements for employment, as required by Chapter 435 Florida Statutes in that: I have not been arrested with disposition pending or found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, or have been adjudicated delinquent and the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction for any of the offenses listed below: Relating to: Section 393.135.................... sexual misconduct with certain developmentally disabled clients and reporting of such sexual misconduct Section 394.4593.................. sexual misconduct with certain mental health patients and reporting of such sexual misconduct Section 415.111.................... adult abuse, neglect, or exploitation of aged persons or disabled adults or failure to report of such abuse Section 741.28 ..................... criminal offenses that constitute domestic violence, whether committed in Florida or another jurisdiction Section 777.04...................... attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy Section 782.04...................... murder Section 782.07 ...................... manslaughter, aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, or aggravated manslaughter of a child Section 782.071.................... vehicular homicide Section 782.09...................... killing an unborn quick child by injury to the mother Chapter 784........................... assault, battery, and culpable negligence, if the offense was a felony Section 784.011...................
    [Show full text]
  • Deporting Undesirable Women
    First to Printer_Dadhania (Do Not Delete) 10/2/2018 1:40 PM Deporting Undesirable Women Pooja R. Dadhania Immigration law has long labeled certain categories of immigrants “undesirable.” One of the longest-standing of these categories is women who sell sex. Current immigration laws subject sellers of sex to an inconsistent array of harsh immigration penalties, including bars to entry to the United States as well as mandatory detention and removal. A historical review of prostitution-related immigration laws reveals troubling origins. Grounded in turn-of-the-twentieth-century morality, these laws singled out female sellers of sex as immoral and as threats to American marriages and families. Indeed, the first such law specifically targeted Asian women as threats to the moral fabric of the United States due to their perceived sexual deviance. Subsequent laws built upon these problematic foundations, largely without reexamining the initial goal of safeguarding American morality from the ostensible sexual threat of noncitizen women. This dark history casts a long shadow, and current laws remain rooted in these archaic notions of morality by continuing to focus penalties on sellers of sex (who tend to be women), without reciprocal penalties for buyers (who tend to be men). Contemporary societal views on sellers of sex have changed, however, as society has come to increasingly tolerate and accept sexual conduct outside the bounds of marriage. Although societal views surrounding prostitution remain complex, there is an increased understanding of the different motivations of sellers of sex, as well as a recognition that individuals forced into prostitution are victims who need protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Moral Character
    Good Moral Character Division of Child Welfare Licensing www.michigan.gov/mdhhslicensing ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CONCERNING THE GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENTS OF LICENSE APPLICANTS This publication contains the administrative rules that govern assessment of the good moral character of applicants for licensure or registration of a child care organization or adult foster care facility. The Child Care Organization and Adult Foster Care Facility Licensing Acts require the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to be satisfied that the applicant, registrant, or owners, partners, or directors of the facility (if the applicant is other than an individual) are of good moral character prior to issuance or renewal of a license or registration. The goal and responsibility of the licensing programs administered by the Department’s Division of Child Welfare Licensing is to protect by prevention the adults and children who use Michigan’s licensed residential and day care programs through the identification of risks and the causes of predictable harm. For the purpose of these rules, references to the Department of Social Services mean the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER These rules were filed with the Secretary of State on Janu- ary 12, 1988, and became effective on January 28, 1988. (By authority conferred on the Department of Social Services by section 9 of Act No. 380 of the Public Acts of 1965, as amended, Section 2 and 5 of Act No. 116 of the Public Acts of 1973, as amended, and Sections 5, 10, and 13 of Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1979, as amended, being §§16.109, 722.112, 722.115, 338.43, 400.705, 400.710, and 400.713 of the Michigan Compiled Laws) R 400.1151 License issuance.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Moral Character
    Department of Homeland Security § 316.10 §§ 316.6–316.9 [Reserved] (iii) Violated any law of the United States, any State, or any foreign coun- § 316.10 Good moral character. try relating to a controlled substance, (a) Requirement of good moral character provided that the violation was not a during the statutory period. (1) An appli- single offense for simple possession of cant for naturalization bears the bur- 30 grams or less of marijuana; den of demonstrating that, during the (iv) Admits committing any criminal statutorily prescribed period, he or she act covered by paragraphs (b)(2) (i), (ii), has been and continues to be a person or (iii) of this section for which there of good moral character. This includes was never a formal charge, indictment, the period between the examination arrest, or conviction, whether com- and the administration of the oath of mitted in the United States or any allegiance. other country; (2) In accordance with section 101(f) (v) Is or was confined to a penal insti- of the Act, the Service shall evaluate tution for an aggregate of 180 days pur- claims of good moral character on a suant to a conviction or convictions case-by-case basis taking into account (provided that such confinement was the elements enumerated in this sec- not outside the United States due to a tion and the standards of the average conviction outside the United States citizen in the community of residence. for a purely political offense); The Service is not limited to reviewing (vi) Has given false testimony to ob- the applicant’s conduct
    [Show full text]
  • Matter of GONZALEZ-ZOQUIAPAN, 24 I&N Dec
    Cite as 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008) Interim Decision #3613 Matter of Oscar GONZALEZ-ZOQUIAPAN, Respondent File A97-883-781 - Los Angeles Decided June 25, 2008 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) A single act of soliciting prostitution on one’s own behalf does not fall within section 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(D)(ii) (2006), which provides for the inadmissibility of an alien who “procured . prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution.” (2) The respondent’s conviction for disorderly conduct relating to prostitution in violation of section 647(b) of the California Penal Code does not render him inadmissible under section 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act. FOR RESPONDENT: Tim Everett, Esquire, Los Angeles, California BEFORE: Board Panel: FILPPU, COLE, and PAULEY, Board Members. PAULEY, Board Member: In a decision dated May 3, 2006, an Immigration Judge found the respondent removable on his own admissions and concluded that he is statutorily ineligible for both cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006), and voluntary departure under section 240B(b)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1) (2006), because he failed to establish good moral character. The respondent has appealed from the Immigration Judge’s denial of relief from removal. The Department of Homeland Security has not filed a brief in this matter. The respondent’s appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded for further proceedings.
    [Show full text]