U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Hanover, Sean R OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - WAS
Hanover Law, PC 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 900
2751 Prosperity Ave Arlington, VA 22202
Suite 150
Fairfax, VA 22031

Name: RAZO, ALDO REYMUND A 096-620-533

Date of this notice: 10/16/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: Aldo Reymund Razo, A096 620 533 (BIA Oct. 16, 2017)
.,

U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A096 620 533 - Arlington, VA Date: OCT 1 6 2017

In re: Aldo Reymund RAZO a.k.a Aldo Remund Razo

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Sean R. Hanover, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Justin Leone

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Remand

This case is before us on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
On October 22, 2015, the Fourth Circuit granted the government's unopposed motion to remand
the proceedings to the Board for further evaluation of whether the respondent's 2011 unfair or
deceptive trade practices conviction in violation of Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 13-303,
constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude ("CIMT"), considering intervening binding Fourth
Circuit precedent - Omargharib v. Holder, 775 F.3d 192 (4th Cir. 2014) - which addresses
statutory divisibility. We previously dismissed the respondent's appeal of the Immigration Judge's
December 18, 2012, written decision finding that the respondent did not meet his burden of proof
for cancellation of removal, as he did not show that his conviction is not a CIMT. See
section 240A(b)(l)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(l)(C).

The United States Supreme Court and the Board have also issued precedent clarifying statutory
divisibility following our dismissal of the respondent's appeal. See Mathis v. United States,
136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016); Matter of Chairez-Castrejon, 26 I&N Dec. 819 (BIA 2016). Under the
circumstances, we will remand the proceedings to the Immigration Judge to consider in the first
instance the effect, if any, of the intervening precedent on the Immigration Judge's determination
that section 13-301-which defines unfair or deceptive trade practices-is divisible, and therefore,
subject to the modified categorical approach. In particular, the Immigration Judge should address
whether the specified provisions under section 13-301 constitute alternative means or elements.
The parties should be given an opportunity to provide additional briefing, including submitting
state case law and other relevant information, such as jury instructions, to inform the Immigration
Judge's analysis.

Additionally, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision relevant to the Immigration Judge's
conclusion that the respondent's solicitation of prostitution conviction in violation of Va. Code
Ann . 18.2-346, is subject to the petty offense exception, and therefore, does not render him
ineligible for cancellation of removal. The Fourth Circuit rejected that analysis in
Hernandez v. Holder, 783 F.3d 189, 194-95 (4th Cir. 2015), holding that the petty offense
exception under section 212(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), only
impacts an alien's admissibility, not cancellation of removal eligibility. As the Fourth Circuit
discussed, the petty offense exception is immaterial to whether a CIMT conviction renders an alien

Cite as: Aldo Reymund Razo, A096 620 533 (BIA Oct. 16, 2017)
 "
A096 620 533

ineligible for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b)( 1 )(C) of the Act. Id; see also
Matter of Cortez Canales, 25 I&N Dec. 301, 306-308 (BIA 2010).1

Under the circumstances, we will reopen the proceedings and remand the record to the
Immigration Judge for further proceedings to evaluate the respondent's eligibility for cancellation
of removal, including whether either of his convictions constitutes a disqualifying CIMT.

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Accordingly, the following orders will be entered.

ORDER: The Board's July 18, 2014, decision is vacated.

FURTHER ORDER: The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings
consistent with this decision.

'
FRTHE BOARD

1 We separately note that in an unpublished decision issued after the Immigration Judge's decision
in these proceedings, the Board found that solicitation of prostitution under a Florida criminal
statute is a CIMT. See Matter ofSehmi, 2014 WL 4407689 (BIA Aug. 19, 2014).

Cite as: Aldo Reymund Razo, A096 620 533 (BIA Oct. 16, 2017)