## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3433 M ANUEL DE J ESUS F AMI LI A R O SARIO, P etitio ner, v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tt or n ey G en er al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, Res pond e nt
.

Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

.

No . A 046-778- 586
A RG UE D J UNE 10, 2011

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 24, 2011

B efore B AUER, F LA UM, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . M an u el d e Jesu s Fam ilia R os ar io has be en a Law ful Perm an en t Res i dent ofthe U ni ted St ate s s i nce 1 999. In N ove m ber 2007, pursuant to a s i ngl eco unti nf o r m at i o n, F am il i a Ro sa r i o pl ed g ui l tyt o a i di ng and abett i ng a cons p iracy, the obj ect ofwh i ch w as a vi ol ati on o f8 U
. S. C. § 1328 , w hi ch prohibi ts the “ i m port ati on into the Un i ted S tat es ofany al i en f orthe pu rpos e of p ro st itu tio n, or for a n y ot h er im m or al p u rp os e.”2 N o. 10

- 3433 F a mi l i a R o s a r i o ’ s r o l e c o n s i s t e d o fdi s t r ib u t i n gc o n d o ms to w hat he knew were bro thel s. A t sente nci ng, th e g over n m en t c on c ed ed th at R os ar i o w as “a m in or p ar tic ipant” and ag re ed to a tw o- l eve l r ed ucti on in the cal cul ati on o fhi s ba se offense l eve l

. In N ove m bero f2 00 9, j ud gm ent was e nter ed and Fam i l i a Ros ar i o w as sente nced t o t i me s e r v e d. T h e g ov er n m en t c om m en c ed rem ov al p ro c ee d in gs in ear l y 2 010 on the gr ounds that Fam i l i a Ros ar i o com m i tted a cri m e in volv i ng m or altur pitud e under sect i on 212( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i )(I) ofthe I m m i gr ati on a nd N ati onal i ty A ct ( “I N A ”) , and for having i nd i re ctl y o r dir ectly pr ocur ed pr o st i tu te s o rpe r so ns f o rthe pu rpo se o fpr o st i tu ti o n, pur su an t to I N A § 2 12 ( a) ( 2)(D)(i i )
. F ami l i a Ro sa r i o c o nceded re m ovabi l i ty f ora cri m e invol vi ng m or altur pitud e, but den i ed r emov ab i l i ty f o r pr o cur i ng per so ns for the p u rp os e o f p ro st itu ti o n . H e c laim ed th at h e w as eligib le for cance l l ati on o fr em ova lunder I N A § 240A(a) , wh i ch requ ir es tha t th e no nc i ti ze n h av e l awfulpe r m an en t re si dence f orfive yea rs , co nti nuous r esi dence f orse ven yea rs , and no convi cti on forwh at am ounts to an ag gr avate d fel ony. Though not charg ed w i th rem ovabi l i ty bas ed on a co nvi cti on o fan a ggr avat ed fel ony, the gov e r nme nta r g ue d, a nd the I mm i g r a t i o n J ud g e a g r e e d, that Fam i l i a Ros ar i o com m i tte d “an o ffense that re l ate s to the ow nin g, con troll ing, m an aging or sup ervising of a pros ti tuti on business, ” an d was ther ef or e a n agg ra vate d fel on und er I N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i )
. The Im m i gr ati on J udg e den i ed F ami l i a R o s a r i o ’ s a p p l i c a t i o nfo rc a n ce l l at i o n. T h e B oa rd of Im m igr at ion A p p ea ls re vie w ed th e Im m ig r a t i o n J ud g e ’ s de c i s i o n de n o v o , a nd a ffi r med the de

-N o. 10

- 3433 3 ter m i nati on that F am i l i a Ros ar i o’ s co nvi ction co nsti tuted an ag gr avat ed fel ony. Rosa ri o fi l ed a t i m el y pet i ti on o f r ev i ew, f o l l o wed by an emer g en cys ta y o fr emov aldur i ng the p e nd e nc y o fthi s a pp e a l, wh i c h thi s c o ur tg r a nt e d. Bec au se we ha ve co nc l ude d tha t the “i m po r ta ti o n int o the U n ite d S ta te s of an y a lien for th e p u rp os e o f p ro st itu tio n,” 8 U.S
. C. § 1 328, enco m passes co nd uct that i s br oaderthan “a n o ffen se tha t r el at es t o the o w ni ng, c o nt r o l l i ng, mana g i n go rs u p e r v i s i n go fa p r o s t i t u t i o n b u s i n e s s , ” I NA § 1 01( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i ) , we fi nd thatFa m i l i a Ros ar i o’ s co nvi cti on i s no t pr oper l y ca tegor i zed as an a ggr avat ed fel ony. The peti ti on forr evi ew i s g ra nted, the or der o fr em ova l i s v acat ed, and the case r em anded f orco nsid erati on of Fam i l i a Ros ar i o’ s a p p lica tio n for c an c ella tio n of re m ov al.

I . B AC KGR OUND M an u el d e Je su s F am ilia R os ar io is a six ty ye a r old n a t i v e a n d c i t i z e n o fth e D o mi n i c an Repu b l i c . He ha s l i ve d i n the Uni te d S ta te s as a La wfu lPe r m an en t Resi dent si nce 19 99. Fa m il i a Ros ar i o i s m ar ri ed to a Uni t e d S ta t e s c i t i z e n, wi th t wo c i t i z e n c hi l dr e n, a nd a chi l d w i th Law ful Perm anent Res i dent sta tus. I n N ovem ber of 2007, p urs ua nt to a si ng le- cou nt i nform ati on, Fam ili a Ros ar i o ple d gui l ty i n the U ni ted S tat es Di st r i ctCo ur t f o rthe Di st r i cto fM i nne so ta t o a i di ng and abett i ng a conspi ra cy to com m i t a n offense ag ainst th e U nited States, in violation of1 8 U
. S. C
. § 371 (consp irac y t o c o m m i t o ffen se o rt o de fr au d U nited S ta te s) a nd 18 U. S
. C. § 2 ( ai di ng an d ab et ting st atut e)
. The o bj ec t o fthe conspi ra cy w as a vio l ati on o f8 U
. S. C. § 1 328, wh i ch4 N o. 10

- 3433 pr o hibi ts the “ i m po r ta ti o n int o the U ni te d S ta te s o fa ny al i en f or the pu rpos e of pros ti tuti on, or f or an y ot h er i m m or alpurpo se .” The f actualbas i s o fthe ple a a gr eem ent s tat ed the f ol l owing:
a. Fr om i n orabo ut 20 06 to on o r about M ay 19, 20 07, tw o or m ore p erson s cam e to an agreem en t o r u n d e rsta nd i ng to co m m i t a n offen se ag ai nst the U ni ted St at es , na m ely to ru n a p ro st i t u t i on op er at ion in th e S ta te o fM i nne so ta us i ng wom en fr o m o th erc o untr i es and stat es. b. W i th kno w l edge o fthe exi ste nce and purpose of th e co ns pi r ac y, th e defen dan t vo l unt ar i l y an d i nt en ti onal l y a i ded and abe tte d the co nspir acy. c. In furthe r an ce o fthe c o ns pi r ac y, the de fen dan t di st r ibut ed co ndo m s o r“ ch o co l at es ” to v ar i o us b r o th

els for th e p u rp os es of p ro st itu tio n . The pl ea a g r ee m en t al so s ta te d tha t th e “g o vern m en t agr ees thatthe defe nd ant’ s o ffense l eve lsho uld be dec re ased by 2 l eve l s be cause the defendant w as a m i nor parti ci pant i n the conspi ra cy. ” J ud gm ent was e nter ed i n No v e mbe ro f2 0 0 9 , a nd F a mi l i a R o s a r i o wa s s e nt e nced t o t i me s e r v e d. The Departm ent o fH om el and Secur i ty com m enced re m ova lpro ceedi ngs a gainst F am i l i a Rosar i o i n ear l y 2 010 an d de ta i ne d F ami l i a Ro sa r i o i n Mar ch2 010, wher e he re m a in s. H is N ot ice to A p p ea r c h ar ge d th at Fa m ilia Ro s a r i o wa s r e mov ab l e fr o m t he Uni t e d S t a t e s f or ha v i ngc o mm i tt e d a c r i me i nv o l v i ngmo r a ltur pi t ud e pu rs uant to se cti on 2 12( a) ( 2)(A ) ( i ) ( I ) o fthe I m m i gr ati on an d N at ion alit y A c t ( “IN A ”), an d for h av in g in d ire c tlyN o. 10

- 3433 5

T h is p ro v isi o n is a lso fou n d at 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(43 )(K )(i). 1 Unl es s othe rwi s e not ed, we s hal l on l y c i t e t o the c or re s pondi ng p ro v ision of the Im m igr atio n a nd N atio na lity A ct. o rdi r ec tly pr o cur ed pr o stitut es o rpe r so ns f o rthe p urp ose of prostitu tion, p urs ua nt to I N A § 212(a)( 2)(D)(i i)
. Du ring a hear i ng be f or e the I m m i gr ati on J ud ge ( “IJ ”) i n Ma y o f 2 0 1 0 , F a mi l i a R o s a r i o c o n c e d e d th a the w as re m ovabl e forhaving co m m i tt ed a cri m e o fm or al tu r pi tu de, b utde ni ed ce r ta i n f actu ala l l eg at i o ns a nd re m ovabi l i ty re l ating to t he pro curem ent o fpro sti tutes
. F ami l i a Ro sa r i o a l so a r g ue d tha t he w as el i g ibl e f o rc an cellati on of rem oval un d er I N A § 240A (a). Because F am ilia Rosar i o conceded r em ovabi l i ty und er IN A § 21 2(a )(2) (A )(i)(I) for a c rim e inv olv in g m or al t u rp itude, the IJ deter m i ned that re m ovab ility was est abl i s h e d and d i d n o tr e a c h r e mo v ab i l i t y u n d e rI NA § 2 12 (a)( 2)(D )(ii), re lat in g t o th e p ro c u r em en t o f p ro st itutes
. T he IJthen add re sse d Fam i l i a Ros ar i o’ s a pp l i cati on for ca n c ella tio n of r e m o va l. U n d er IN A § 24 0A (a), a no nc i ti ze n mustshow tha t he ha s ha d l awfulpe r m an en t sta tus for atl eas t fi ve yea rs , has re si ded i n the U ni ted S t a t e s f o ra c o nt i nu o us p e r i o d o fs eve n yea r s a ft e ra dm i ssi on, and that he has not been c on vi cted o fan a ggr avat ed fel ony. The go vernm ent a rgued th at Fam i l i a Ros ar i o’ s co nvi cti on fel lunder I N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i ) , wh i ch in c l ud es as a n a g g r av at ed fel o ny “ ano ffen se tha t r el at es t o the ow n in g, co n tr ollin g, m an ag in g or su p er vis in g ofa p ro st itu tio n b u siness
. . . . ” Th e IJ foun d that Fam il ia Rosario’s 1 predi cate co nvi cti on w as “div i sibl e, ” in that i t incl ud ed6 N o. 10

- 3433

c on d u c t t h at w ou ld fall u n d er IN A § 10 1(a )(43 )(K )(i) an d co n d u c t t h at w ou ld n ot . U sin g t h e m od ified ca te go ricalapproa ch, the IJ f ound that the r eco rd o fco nvi cti on sh ow ed th at Fa m ilia R os ar io w as co n v i c t ed of kn ow in gly ai ding and abett i ng i n a c onspi ra cy to i m portalien s for the purpos e o fpro sti tuti on, and that hi s con victi on thus “r el ate [ d] t o” the ow n in g, co ntro l l i ng, m anaging o r su per vi singo fa pr o st i tu ti o n b us i ne ss . The IJ f o und Fam i l i a Ros ar i o sta tutor i l y inel i gibl e for ca ncel l ati on o f re m ov al, an d ord er ed h im rem ov ed . Fam ilia R os ar io tim ely ap p ea led to th e B oa rd of Im m igr at i o n A p p ea ls ( “BI A ”) , wh i ch co nd ucted a de novo r evi ew and affi rm ed the IJ ’ s dete rm i nati on that F am i l i a Ros ar i o had been c on vic te d of an ag gr av at ed felon y. R os ar io filed a tim ely peti ti on ofr evi ew , f ol l owed byan e m er gencyst ay of re m ova ldu rin g the pendency o fthi s a pp eal, wh i ch thi s c o ur tg r a nt e d.

II. A N A L Y S IS T h e qu es tio n ra ise d in th is a p p e a l is w h e t h e r F am ilia Ro sa r i o ’ s co nv i ct i o n c o ns ti tu te s ana g g r av at ed fel ony u n d er IN A § 10 1(a )(43 )(K )(i) su c h th at h e is ine ligib le f or cancel l ati on of re m ova l

. This cour t re vi ew s d e novo the l ega lq u esti on o fwh ethera convi cti on co nsti tutes ana g g r av at ed fel o ny f o rpur po se s o fe l igibil i tyf o rc an c e llat ion
. S e eG u e r r e r o - P e r ez v . INS , 2 4 2 F
. 3 d 7 2 7, 73 0 ( 7th Ci r . 20 01 )
. W he r e th e BI A’s dec i si o n adopts and a ffi r ms th e IJ ’ s c o n c l u s i o n a s wel la s p r o v i d i n gi t s o wn an aly sis , w e rev iew bo th d ec isio n s. G a isk o v v . Ho lder,N o. 10

- 3433 7

T his ap pro ac h h as i t s or i gi ns i n Taylor v. U n i te d S tat es , 495 2 U. S. 57 5 ( 19 90 ) , i n whi c h the Su pre m e Cour tc onsider ed the ci rcum st ances und er which a c ourt co u ld app ly a s tatutory en han c em en tt o the s en t en c e ofa defen dantwith a pr i or co n v ic tio n for b u rg la ry . S ee4 9 5 U. S
. a t5 7 8 ( consi de r i nga pplica tion of18 U.S
. C. § 924( e) , w hich prov ides f or a s ente nce en han c em en t f or a defen dantwith thr ee pr evi ous c onvi c t i ons for a “v iolen t felon y ,” de fined in p ar t a s “ an y crim e . . . [that] is b u rg la ry ” ); seeal so U ni t ed Sta t es v. Woods , 57 6 F .3d 40 0 (7th C ir . 20 0 9 ). 567 F. 3d 832, 83 5 ( 7th C i r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng G ida y v . Go nz a les , 434 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2006)). W e gen erall y em p loy a c ategorical ap p roach to det erm i ne w h ether a co nvi cti on co nsti tutes an a ggr avat ed felo n y. Gais kov , 56 7 F
. 3d at 835- 36. In apply in g the cat e- 2 g o r i ca la ppr o ac h in the ag g r av at ed fel o ny c o nt ex t, the co ur t m ak es a c at eg o r i ca lc o m par i so n b etwee n the gener i c crim e u se d i n the I N A and the el em ents ofea ch par ti cul aro ffen se o fwhi chthe no nc i ti zen was c o nvic te d

. Se eGai s kov , 567F.3d at83 5

- 3 6 ; E k e v. M uk a sey, 51 2 F.3d 372 , 379-80 (7th C ir. 2008). H owe ver, wh en the underl yi ng cr i m i nalst atute pro sc rib e s m u ltip le t yp es of co n d u c t, so m e o f w h ich w ou ld constitute an ag gr avat ed fel ony and som e o fwh i ch w oul d not, co urts have em plo yed a “m odi fi ed cate gor i cal approach. ” See Gais kov , 567F.3d at8 3 6 n .2. U n d er th is ap p roach, a j udg e m aye xa m i ne the r ec o r d o fc o nv i ct i o n, i ncl ud i ng the te rm s o fa ple a a gr eem en t, i n or der t o det er m i ne whethe rthe de fen dan t pl ed g ui l tyt o the8 N o. 10

- 3433

18 U .S. C
. § 2 state s: 3 ( a) W hoe vercom m i t s an of fen s e aga i ns tthe Uni t ed S t at es or aid s, ab ets, cou nsels, com m a n d s, ind u ces or p ro cu res its com m ission, is p u nish ab le as a p rinc ip al. (b ) W h o e v er w illfu lly ca u ses an a ct to b e d on e w hich if d irectly p erform ed b y h i m or a no the r w ou ld b e an offen se ag ain st the U nited States, is p u nish ab le as a p rinc ip al. 18 U .S. C
. § 37 1 states, in relev an t pa rt: C on sp iracy to co m m it offen se or to d efrau d U nited States. I ft wo or m or e per s ons c ons pi re e i the r t o com m itan y of fense agains t the United Stat es , or t o defr aud the Un it ed Sta tes, or an y a ge nc y the re ofi n a ny m ann eror f or an y p u rp ose, an d o n e o r m or e of such p erso ns d o a ny act to effect the objectofthe cons piracy, eac h shal l be fined u nderthi s t i t l e or i m pri s one d notm or e thanfi ve ye ar s , or both. port i on o fthe sta tute th at const i tutes an a ggr avat ed felo n y. Woods , 576 F.3d at40 6; see also G o nz a z els v . D uen a sA lva rez , 549 U .S. 18 3, 18 7 (2 00 7); Sh epa r d v . U nited Sta tes , 544 U
. S. 13, 16-17 (2005). Befo re deci ding w heth er t o em plo y the cat ego ri calo r m o di fied cat eg o r i ca la ppr o ac h, we m us t fi r str es o l ve the iss u e o f w h a t t h e p ro p er st at u te of co n vic tio n is. Fam ilia R osario ple d guilty to aidin g and abettin g tw o or m ore w ho co nspir ed to co m m i t a n offense aga i nst the U ni ted St ate s in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. sect i ons 2 a nd 37 1. Those 3 sta tutes , bythem sel ves, would not f al lunder the ag gr ava te d fel o ny pr o vi si o n a t i ss ue he r e, a s th eyha ve no th i ng to do w i th pro sti tuti on. The IJ and B I A i nstea d used asN o. 10

- 3433 9

The gove rn m en tdoe s no tc ont en d, an d the IJ and BIA di d not 4 addre s s , whethe r Fam ilia Ros ar i o’ s c onvi c t i on fel l unde r the “control ” l angu age of8 U.S
. C. § 1328. th e pr edi ca te c o nv i ct i o n 8 U. S
. C. § 1 32 8, whi chthe i nform a t i o n s t a t e s , a n d F a mi l i a R o s a r i o c o n c e d e s , wa s th e o bj ec t o fthe c ons pi r ac y tha t F ami l i a Ro sa r i o a i ded an d abet ted. 8 U
. S. C. § 1 328 sta tes i n re l evantpart : The i m port ati on i nto the U ni ted St ate s of any a l i en f orthe pu rpos e o fpro sti tuti on, o r f orany othe r im m or al p u rp os e, is forb id d en . W h oe v e r sh all, dir ectly o r i nd i re ctl y, i m port, o r att em pt to i m po r t i nt o the Uni te d S ta te s an y a l i enf o rthe pu rpos e o fpro sti tuti on o r f or a ny o theri m m or al pu rpos e, o r shal l hol d o r att em pt to hol d a ny al i en f orany s uch pu rpos e in pursuance o fsuch i l l ega l im p or ta tio n, or sh all ke ep , m ain ta in, c on tr ol, supp or t, em plo y, or h ar bori n any house oro ther p l ac e, f o rthe pur po se o fpr o st i tu ti o n o rf o ra ny othe r i m m or alpurpose, any al i en, i n pursuance ofsuch i l l ega li m port ati on, shal lbe fi ned und er Tit l e 1 8, o r i m pri sone d not m or e than 10 yea rs , o rb o th

. 4 Fam i l i a Ros ar i o ar gues that the BIA i m proper l y focuse d on the o b j ec t ofthe conspi ra cy ra therthan hi s co nvi cti on f orai ding and abett i ng the co nspir acy. U si n g the o bj ect o fthe c o ns pi r a c y, F a mi l i a R o s a r i o a r g ue s , wo ul d i mpr o per l y e quate hi m with a co - conspira to r as opposed to sim p ly an aider an d abettor.10 N o. 10

- 3433 This cour t has , i n the cri m i nalco ntext, acknow l edged a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t we e n c o n s p i r a c y a n d a i d i n ga n d ab e tt i ng a co ns pi r ac y . In U nited Sta tes v . Z a firo , 94 5 F
. 2d 881, 88 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1) , we no te d tha t “[ a] t fir stg l an ce i t m i g ht se em o dd tha t th er e co ul d b e . . . s epa r at e cr i m es o fc o nspi r ac y a nd o fa i di nga nd abe tt i ng a con spi r ac y, ” but then f ound that the acto fai ding an d a b et ti ng di d “not ne ce s s a r i l y ” ma k e th e a i d e ra n d ab e t t o ra me mb e ro fthe conspi ra cy, f orexam ple , wh en the ai der a nd abe tto r did notf or m an ag reem ent with the conspi ra tor s, an es se nti alel em ent forco nspir acy l i abi l i ty. W e l ate r sta ted th at, “ [ a] i di nga nd abe ttingi s no t a se par at e cr i m e, ” but m aint aine d tha t th er e i s a di st i nc ti on be twe ena i di ng an d abett i nga c o ns pi r ac ya nd pa r ti ci pat i ngi n a c o nspi ra cy, as “the st atute enabl es the g ove rnm ent t o pros ecute those wh o have know in gl y further ed the ai m s o f th e c o ns pi r ac y b utwho wer e no t m embe r s o fthe c o nspi ra cy. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo s ca l zo , 18 F. 3d 37 4, 38 3 ( 7th C ir. 19 94 ). B u t a s t h e a id in g a n d a b et tin g s ta tu te its elf state s, an d as w e hav e fou n d , a n “a ider an d abettor of a substa nti ve offense m ay be t re ate d as a pri nci pal

. ” Id

. T h o u gh no t i n th e c o n s p i r a c y c o n t e x t, th e S u p r e me Court has found t hat the ge neri c te rm “theft o ffense” as us ed i n the a g g r av at ed fel ony pr o vi si o n o fthe I N A i nc lu d es aid in g a n d ab et tin g t h eft

. D uen a s-A lva rez , 549 U
. S. at 18 7, see also I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( G) ( i nc l udi nga s ana g g r av at ed fel o ny “ a th eft o ffen se ( i ncl udi n g r e c e i p t o f s t o l e n p r o p e r t y )
. . . f o r wh i c h t he te r m o fi m pri so nm en t [ i s] a t l ea sto ne y ea r ”)
. In D uen a sA lva rez , th e n o n c itiz en w as co n vic te d of a C alifo rn iaN o. 10

- 3433 11 st at e st atut e th atpuni sh ed th e ta king of a v eh i cl e, a nd i ncl ud ed l i abi l i ty f or“a ny per son w ho i s a party oran ac c es so ry to or a n ac c om p lice in” th e s ta tu te
. Id

. at18 7. The Ni nth Ci r cui t had found tha t be ca us e o ne might “a i d” o r“ abet ” a the ft wi th o utt ak i ngo rc o nt r o l l i ng proper ty, an e l em ent o fge neri c the ft, “a i ding and abetting ” th eft was no t i ts el fa c r i m e tha t fe l lwi th i n the g e ne r i c de fi ni t i o n o fthe ft
. T he S up r e me Co ur tr e v e r s e d. I t fou nd thatno j uri sdic ti on m ade a dist i ncti on be tw een pr i nc i pal s an d a i der s and abe tt o r s ei th erpr es en t atthe c r i me o rth o s e w h o h e l p th e p r i n c i p a lb e f o r e th e c r i mi nalev ent t ake s pl ace, and, bec ause “cr i m i nall aw now un if or m l y t r ea ts tho se . . . c at eg o r i es a l i k e, ” g en er i c th eft c ov er s “ aid er s a n d ab et to rs ” a s w ell as p rin c ip als

. Id

. at 8 2 0 ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i o ns om i t t e d)

. T he Co ur tc o nc l ud e d, th er efo r e, tha t th e cr i m i na la ct i vi ti es o fa i der s an d ab et to rs of a ge n er ic t h eft m u st th em se lve s fa ll w ith in the s cope o fthe ter m “theft” i n the federa lag gr avat ed felo n y p ro vis ion
. Id

. S o m e te ns i o n e xi st s be twe en D uen a s-A lva rez a nd o ur ea r l i erc as es i n the c r i m i na lc o nt ex t th at fi nd tha t o ne can a i d and abet a co nspir acy w i thout f or m i ng the ag re em ent r equi re d fo r that con sp i ra cy. To the exte nt a confl i ct e xi sts i n the agg ra vate d fe l ony conte xt, i t i s no t one w e m ust r eso lve t od ay. Even as sum i ng the pro per sta tute ofco nvi cti on a t i ssue i s the obje cto fthe conspi ra cy th atwas a i ded an d abe tt ed, 8 U. S
. C. § 1 32 8, we do no t fi nd th at th e p or tio n of th e s ta tu te w h ich rela te d to F a m ilia12 N o. 10

- 3433

Fam i l i a Ros ar i o a rg ues th at ifthe pr ope r i nqu i ry i s i nt o the 5 obj ec tof the c ons pi ra c y underanai di ng a nd abe t t i ng the or y, the p r o p e r a g gr a v a t e d fe l o n y p r o v i s i o n a ti s s u e w o u l d b e I NA § 1 01 ( a) ( 43) ( U) ; 8 U. S. C. 11 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( U) ( “a n a t t em ptor c ons pi ra c y t o c om m i tanoffen s e des c ribed i n thi s par agr aph” ) , an d tha t the failur e to a p p ly th e p ro p er p ro v ision am ou nts to r e v e r s ib l e e r r o r . H e r e , th e B I A s p e c i fi c a l l y r ej e c t e d u s i n g I NA § 1 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( U) , f i ndi ng th atthe “s ubs t ant i ve offen s e” ofai di ng and abet t i ng un der 18 U. S. C. § 2 for m ed the basi s ofthe al l eg ed a ggr ava t ed fel ony, no tthe offen s e ofc on s pi ra c y. The BIA the n pr oc ee ded t o di re c t l y a ppl y I N A § 1 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i ) , the pro vi s i on re gar di ng a n off en s e thatr el at es t o the owni ng, con tro lling , m an ag ing , or sup erv isin g o f a p ro stitutio n b u siness . Ag ain, thi s is not an is sue we m ust res olve, as even if sub se c t ion U w ere a p p licab le, the go v ern m en t w ou ld still ne ed to p r o v e tha t the o b ject of the co nsp iracy “fit[ s] w ithin the parti cular [ subst anti ve] aggrav ated fel ony category, ” P i erre v. Hol der, 588 F. 3d 767, 774 ( 2d C ir
. 2009) ( ci tat ions and inter nal qu ota tion om itt e d ), her e, s u b section ( K )( i), w hich w e find it cannot do. W e t ake no posit ion on w hetherthe agency’ s f ail ure t o pr ope rl y a ppl y I N A § 1 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( U ) in the c anc el l at i on of rem oval c o n te xt i s by i ts el frevers ible err or. N or do w e t ake a pos i t i on on whethe r the gove rn m en t ’ s f ai l ur e t o pr ope rl y c har ge a noncit ize n w ith rem oval und er IN A § 101( a) ( 43) ( U ) in a N oti ce to Ap pear, and the Board ’ s subseq u en t f ail ure t o analyze rem ov ab ility on tha t gro u nd w ou ld am ou n t to rev ersib le er ro r o r a v io la tio n o f d u e p ro ce ss. See, e. g. , P i erre, 588 F. 3d at 77 5- 76 ( fi ndi ng thatI N A § 1 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( U) i s no ta l es s eri nclu d ed offen se of IN A § 10 1(a)( 43 )( M ) suc h th at failur e to charg e n o ncit ize n w ith rem ovab il ity und er s ub se ct ion U w as (co n tin u ed ...) Rosar i o’ s pl ea am ounts to an ag gr avat ed fel ony. 5N o. 10

- 3433 13

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 5 g ro u nd s fo r r e v ersal, and tha t sua spon te invocati on of subsec

tio n U v io la te d n o n ci tiz en ’s d u e p ro ce ss r ig h ts). T h e g ov er n m en t a rg u es th at8 U .S.C . § 13 28 is a d ivis ible sta tute, i n that som e conduct pros cribed by the sta tute am ounts to an ag gr avated fel ony, wh i l e o therco nd uct does n ot . The g ove rnm ent puts the “ i m port ati on into th e U n ite d Sta te s o f an y a lien for th e p u rp os e of p ro st ituti o n” i n the a g g r av at ed fel o ny s i de o fthe di vi di ngl i ne and the s ubsequen t ph ra se, “o r f orany othe r i m m or al p u rp os e,” o n th e n on -ag gr av at ed felon y s id e. T h e IJ and B IA agre ed, and, having f ound the st atute di vi sibl e, l oo ked to the re cor d ofco nvi cti on. The IJ and BI A then f ound tha tthe p l e a a g r e e men ts ho we d tha tthe o bj e c to f the conspi ra cy at i ssue w as to run a pros ti tuti on business. The IJ r el i ed on unpubli shed BI A o pini ons th at re ad se ct i on 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i ) b r o adl y . In o ne o ftho se c as es , the BIA fo und thata convi cti on form oneyl aund er i ng with i nt en tt o p r o mot e p r o s t i t ut i o n i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 956( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) r el ate d to the ow ni ng, co ntro l l i ng, m anaging o r supervi si n g of a pro sti tuti on business be ca us e i t was “ ev i den t th ato ne who c o nduc ts a fi na nci al tra ns ac ti o n tha t ‘ i nv o l ve s th e pr o ce eds ’ o fpr o st i tu
ti o n a nd tha t i s unde r ta k enw i ththe i nt en ti o n ofpr o m o ting pros ti tuti on has co m m i tte d an offense th at ‘ re l ate s t o’ the m anaging o fa pros ti tuti on business. ” In re : Ki e tQ uan Ly, 200 4 W L 31 87 28 6 (B IA 20 04 ) (u n p u b lish ed ). Th e IJ f ound that beca u se Fam i l i a Ros ar i o’ s a ssi sta nce was g i ve n t o a dva nc e th e pur po se o fthe c o ns pi r ac y a t i ss ue14 N o. 10

- 3433 inth is c as e, n am ely , to ru n a p ro st itu tio n bu sin es s, h is offense “r el ate s t o” the o w ni ng, co ntro l l i ng, m anaging o r s up e r v i s i ngo fa p r o s t i t ut i o n b us i ne s s . T he BI A a g r e e d. W e fi nd tha t th e IJ a nd BI A’s a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe m odi fied cat ego ri calapproa ch w as er ro neous, and that the a gencyi m proper l y use d the appro ach i n thi s ca se to exam i ne speci fi c f acts abou t the co nspir acy i nvol ved i n Fam i l ia Rosar i o’ s co nvi cti on. U nd erthe m odi fi ed cate gor i calap p ro ach, “a j ud ge m ay exam i ne a l i m i ted seto faddit i onalm ate ri al s . . . t o deter m i ne the por t i on o f [ the underl yi ng st atute ] to wh i ch the defe nd ant pl ea d ed gui l ty. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 644 F.3d 5 7 3 , 5 76 (7th C ir. 20 11 ) (em p h as is a d d ed ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , 57 6 F. 3d 400, 4 0 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “
. . . p e r mi s s ib l e a ddi t i o nal ma t e r i a l s ma y b e c o n s u l t e d onlyf or the p urp ose of dete rm i ni ng under which p ar t ofa divi sibl e s tatute the defend an t w as c h a rged

. ”) ( em p ha sis add ed ). Th e inqu iry shoul d have e nd ed w hen the IJ a n d B I A l earned that “pro sti tuti on” w as i nvolved, and not som e “ othe r i m m or alpurpose. ” The m odi fi ed catego ri calapproa ch do es no t per m i t ex am inat i o n o fthe c ha r g i ngi ns trum en t an d pl ea ag r ee m en t f o r th e pur po se o f l ea r ni ng the speci fi c f acts o fa speci fi c co n sp ira c y, such as the f act th atthi s spe ci fi c co ns p iracy i nv o l ve d a pr o st i tu ti o n busi

ness , o rw ha t th e defen dan t’ s spe ci fi c r o l e was i n a i di ng and abett i ng tha t co nspir acy. The m odi fi ed cate gor i cal approach onl y a pp l i es w hen a p or ti on o fthe pu rpor tedl y di vi sibl e s tatute i tse l fcat ego ric ally am o u n t s t o a n ag gr av at ed felon y. H er e, th e IJ a nd BI A o p e r a t e d u n d e rth a ta s s u mp t i o n w i th o u tc o m-N o. 10

- 3433 15

S ee, e.g ., In re G ius ep p e P ar lato , 2009 W L 2981757 ( BIA 2009) 6 (u n p u b lis h ed ); In re Juan Jesus Lu n a-Perez , 2008 W L 496940 ( BIA 2008) ( unp ub li shed) ; Inr e M iguel a deLeo n , 2007 W L 2197543 ( BIA 2 0 0 7 ) (u n p u b lis h ed ); In r e Ki e t Q u an Ly, 2004 W L 3187286 ( BIA 2 0 0 4 ) (u n p u b lis h ed ). p aring th e statu tory elem en ts of the fi rst p ortion of 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 8 t o th e o ffe n s e de s c r ib e d i n I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( K) ( i )
. Wh e n c o n d u c t i n gth a ta n a l y s i s , we do not fi nd thatthe port i on o f8 U
. S. C . § 13 28 w hi ch f o r m ed th e ba si s o fF ami l i o Ro sa r i o ’ s ai di ngand ab et ting ple a is “a n offense that re l ate s t o the o w ni ng, co ntro l l i ng, m anaging o r supervi si ng ofa pros ti tuti on business” under I N A § 101(a)( 43) ( K ) ( i )
. The BI A has neveraddress ed th i s s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n, a n d h a s o n l y a d d r e s s e d I NA § 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i ) ; 8 U
. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i ) i n n o np reced en tial, un p ub li sh ed opinion s. W e a re therefore 6 not bound to provi de Che vron de fer en ce to a ny o fthe B IA ’s in te rp re t a t i o n s o f IN A § 10 1(a )(43 )(K )(i). See A rob elidz e v. Ho lder, ___F.3d
___, 20 11 W L 31 32 45 9 a t *6 (7th C ir. J uly 27, 2011 (“ .

. . non -prec ed en tial B oard d ecisions th at d o not rely on bin d ing B oard prec ed en t are not a ff o r de d Che vron de fer en ce . ”)
. Tho ug h Sk idm o re defe re nce s ti l lappli es to l ess fo rm alst ate m ents by an ag en c y, see U nited Sta tes v. M ead C o rp . , 53 3 U.S
. 21 8, 23 4- 35 ( 2001 ) ( ci ti ng S ki dmorev . S wi f t& Co
. , 323 U
. S. 134 (194 4)), an d n on -p re c ed en tia l op in i o n s b y t h e B oa rd fall w ith in th at gro u p , Aro b e l i dze, 20 11 W L 31324 59, at* 6 ( ci tat i on om itted ), un d er S k idm o re, the Board’ s inter preta ti on i s “ enti tl ed to r espect
. . . onl y t o the e xtent that [ i t has the] pow erto per suade. " Id

. ( ci ti ng B a i l ey v . Pr egi s Inno va-16 N o. 10

- 3433 t i vePackagi ng, Inc . , 600 F. 3d 748, 751 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) ( quotati o ns o mi t t e d) )
. We do n o tfi nd the BI A’ s i nt e r pr e t a t i on ofI N A § 101( a) ( 43) ( K ) ( i ) per suasi ve. A dm i tte dly, the ter m “r el ate s t o” has be en co n str ued bro adl y . T he S up r e me Co ur t, i n i nt e r pr e t i ngthe p hr a se “r el ating to” in the A i rl i ne Dere gul ati on Act, o bser ved th atBl ac k ’ s Law Di ct i o na r y d efi ne s th e wor ds ex pansi vel y: “ ‘ to sta nd i n so m e r el ati on; to have bea ring o r concern; to per tain; r efer ; to br i n g into ass oci ati on with orco nnecti on with. ’ ” M orales v. Trans World Air li nes, Inc. , 504 U
. S. 374, 38 3 ( 1992 ) ( quoti ng B la c k ’ s L a w D ictio na ry 1158 ( 5th ed

. 1979)). T h e Sec ond Circu it, i n inte rp r e t i n gth e a g g r av a t e d fe l o n y p r o v i s i o n f o u n d i n I NA § 1 01 (a) ( 43) ( R); 8 U
. S. C. § 1 101( a) ( 43) ( R) ( “an o ffense re l atin g to
. . . f or ger y”) f ound that “ eve n i fposs ess i on o f a for ged i nstr um ent with i ntent to defr aud, decei ve or inj u re is n ot‘forg er y’ a s d efin ed atco m m on law , i t is una r g ua bly a n o ffen se ‘ r el at i ngt o ’ f o r g ery wi th i n the bro ad const ructi on w e hav e g i ven that t er m . ” Ric har ds v. A shcroft, 400 F.3d 125 , 129-130 (2d Cir. 2005). This cour t has si m i l ar l y fo und that the ter m “ ‘ re l ating to ’ i s int ended to hav e a br oadeni ng effect. ” D esai v. M uk a sey, 52 0 F
. 3d 76 2, 7 64 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 8)
. In Esc ob arBar r aza v . M uk a sey, 51 9 F
. 3d 388, 39 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08 ), w e hel d that p o s s e s s i n g“ a p i p e f o rs mo k i n gma r ij u a n a i s a c r i me w i thi n the sco p e of§ 1182 ( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i ) ( I I ) ( re nd er i ng a nonci ti zen inadm i ssibl e forvi ol atin g “any l aw o r re gul ati o n . . . r el at i ngt o a c o nt r o l l ed su bs ta nc e” ) b ec au se dr ug pa r a ph e r na l i a re late s to th e d ru g w ith w h ich it is u se d .” ( Em phasi s in or i gi nal )
. W e have also hel d that a co nvi c-N o. 10

- 3433 17 ti on fordi str ibuti ng a su b sta nce that was desi gned to l o o k l i k e a co nt r o l l ed su bs ta nc e an d woul d “ l ea d a r ea so nabl e perso n to bel i eve i t t o be a co ntro l l ed substa nce, ” i s a vi ol ati on o fa l aw “r el ating to” a co ntro l l ed substa nce. D e s ai, 52 0 F
. 3d at 764- 65 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. W e hel d so because “the i dea ofdi str ibuti ng a “ ‘
. . . Look

- A l i ke’ wo ul d n o te v e n e xi s ta s a l e g a l( o r l i ngui s t i c ) c o nc e pt wi th o uti ts c o nne ct i o n t o , or r el ati o ns hi p wi th, ” th e ac tu al c on tr olle d su b st an c e. Id

. at76 5. Bu t thi s is n ot a cas e where the I N A i ncl ud es as ana ggravat ed fel o ny a n o ffen se tha t “r el at es t o pr o st i tu
ti on” orev en an offense that “r el ate s t o a pro sti tu tio n busi ness .” The I N A r equi re s that the o ffense re l ate to “the owni ng, c ont r ol l i ng, m anag i ng ors upe r vi s i ngof a pr o s t i t ut i o n b us i ne s s . ” I NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( K) ( i ) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 101(a)(43)( K )( i) ( em p ha sis add ed ). Th ose term s are no t defi ne d i n the I N A, a nd so we g i ve the m the i rpl ain, or d in ar y m ea n in g. Sm ith v. U nited Sta tes , 508 U
. S. 22 3, 22 8 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ ‘ Whe n a wo r d i s n o td e fi n e d b y s t a t u t e , we nor m al l y c onst rue i t in acco rd with i ts or dinar y o r natura lm eani ng. ’ ”) ( quo ting P errin v. U nited Sta tes , 44 4 U. S
. 3 7, 4 2 ( 19 79 ) )
. In o r di na r y us ag e, t o “ o wn” s o m ethi ng i s “to have or hol d a s proper ty orappurtenance. ” Web st er ’s Third New Interna tio na l D ictio na ry1 61 2 ( 1993)
. To “ co ntrol” a thing is “to ex e r c ise restra int or direction over; dom i nate, r egul ate , o r com m and.” Web st er ’s Co ll egeD ict i o n a ry29 7 (1 99 1); see also Web st er ’s New C ollegiate D ict i o n a ry2 85 ( 9th e d. 1 98 3) ( defi ni ng“ co nt r o l ” as the “p ow er or a u th or ity to gu id e o r m an ag e” ). To “m an ag e” is “to co ntro land dir ect, ” We b s t e r ’s Third New Int e r nat i onal D ictio na ry13 72 ( 1993 ) , and to “s up er vi se” i s t o “ov ersee18 N o. 10

- 3433

w i th the pow er s o fdi re cti on a nd deci si on, ” id . at 2 29 6; see a lso Webster’s New Wo rld D ictio na ry, 14 30 ( 2d ed. 1974) (“sup ervise [m ean s] to oversee, d irect, or m an age. . . ”). The i ncl usi on o fthes e term s a s pl ai nl y unders too d re q u ire s t h at th e u n d er lyin g off en se n otsi m p l y “ st an d in som e r el atio n ” to o r “have bear i ng o r concern” with pr osti tu ti o n o ra pr o st i tu ti o n b us i ne ss , b uttha t th e actualst atute o fco n victi on “ sta nd i n so m e r el ati on” to or “h av e be ar i ngor co nc ern” wi ths o m e deg r ee o fde ci si o nm aking autho ri ty orposi ti on o fpow er in a pros ti tuti on busi ness. There ar e s tatutes that do j us t that. S om e s tat e c rim in al s ta tu te s e x p licit ly in c lu d e o w n er sh ip , con tr ol, su pervi si on, o r m anage m ent o fa pros ti tuti on business as ele m en ts oft h e offe n se . In N ew Y or k, for e x am p le, a p er so n w ou ld be liab le for p ro m ot i n g p ro st itu tio n in th e th i rd degr ee, wh en she kno w i ngl y “ [ a] dvances o r profi ts fro m p ro sti tuti on by m ana ging, supervisi ng, control

l i ng orowni ng, eitheral one ori n ass oci ati on with others , a . . . pr os tit u tio n bu sin es s o r en te rp ris e in vo lvin g p ro st itu tion a c t iv it y by tw o or m ore prost itutes
. ” N ew York P en al L aw § 23 0.2 5(1 ) (em p h as is a d d ed ); s e ea l s o Yo u s hah v. Sta ud ing er; 604 N .Y .S
. 2d 479, 48 0 ( N
. Y. S up . Ct. 1993 )
. Connecti cut cr i m i nal i zes the sam e co n d uct as pr o m o tingpr o st i tu ti o n in the s ec o nd de g r ee, Conn. Ge n. S t a t
. § 5 3 a - 8 7 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( s a me) , a s do e s De l a wa r e , 1 1 De l

. Co de A nn. § 1352 ( sam e) , A l abam a, A l a. Code 1975 § 13 A -12- 112(a)(1) (sam e), A rkan sas, A
. C
. A
. § 5-70-105(a ) (sam e), and seve ral o therst ate s fro m M ai ne, 17M ai ne Rev. S tat
. § 8 51( 2) ( E), to H aw ai i, H aw . Rev. S tat
. § 712- 1203
.N o. 10

- 3433 19 There ar e a l so a num ber o f s tate s tatutes that do not expli ci tl y use the ter m s “own, contr ol, supervis e, or m an ag e,” bu t w ou ld “re lat e t o” su c h te rm s a s w e o rd ina r i l y unde r st an d the m . F o re xa m pl e, Al ab ama and C on n ec tic u t in c lu d e int h eir d efin itio n of “a d va n c e p ro st ituti on” a per so n wh o “oper ate s o r ass i sts i n the oper ation of a hou se of prosti t u t ion or a p rostitution ente rpr i s e , ” a n d s u c h a p e r s o n c o u l d b e l i ab l e f o rp r o mo ti ng pros ti tuti on in the thi rd degre e. A l a. Code 1975 §§ 13 A

- 12- 11 0; 13 A -12 -11 3; C on n . G en . Sta t. § § 5 3 a-8 5; 53 a-8 8. In Ari zo na , a pe r so n “ who k no wi ng l y o per at es o rmai nta in s a h o u s e of p ro st itu tio n or p ro st itu tio n en te rp ris e is gu il ty of a class 5 fel ony . ” A riz. Rev
. Stat. § 13-3208 (B). W e ca nnot fi nd thatthe “i m port ation i nto the Unite d St ate s o fany al i en f orthe pu rpos e of pros ti tuti on, ” under 8 U.S
. C. § 1 328, unl i ke the s tat e s tatutes d i scusse d above , c at eg or ica lly “r ela te s t o” th e o w n er sh ip , con tr ol, su p e rv isi o n, o rmana g emento fa p ros ti tu ti o n b us i ne ss . The st atut e, b y i ts v ery t er m s, i nc l ude s c onduc t th atmight have nothi ng to do with own ershi p, co ntro l, m anage m ent o r supervi si on of a busi ness. Genera l l y, a convi cti o n un de r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 2 8 wo ul d o nly r e qu i r e pr o ofthat ( 1) the d efend ant i m port ed a per son i nto the Unite d S ta te s; ( 2) tha t p erso n was a n a l i en ; a nd ( 3) the de fen dan t i m port ed the al i en f orthe pu rpos e o fhav in g h im o r her e n ga ge in p ro st itu tio n . S e e, e . g . , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Mi Kyun g Byun , 5 39 F
. 3d 98 2, 9 86

- 87( 9th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Inv o l ve m en t i n a pr o st i tu ti o n b us i ne ss i s no t ane l ement of the offen se, nori s a ny “r el ati on t o” a pos i ti on o fautho ri ty orpow er i n such a busi ness. Cl ear l y, the sta tute cer tainl y ca n co ve r c on d u c t t h at inc lu d es th e o w n e r s h ip20 N o. 10

- 3433 and c ontr ol of a pros ti tuti on busi ne ss , s ee, e.g., id

. at98 3 ( co nv i ct i o n un der8 U
. S. C. § 1 32 8 wher e “Mi Kyu ng By una nd h e rh usb a nd o w ne d a nd op erated a n igh t c lu b

. . . i n w hi ch fem al e em plo yee s coul d e ngage i n se x u al acts w ith t h e c lu b ’s c lien ts ”) (e m p h as is a d d ed ), bu t t h at p os sibi l i ty ( and a ctual occur re nce) i s not suffi ci ent fo r fi nd i ng tha t 8 U
. S. C. § 1 328 is cate gor i cal l y a n offense that re l ate s t o the o w ni ng, co ntro l l i ng, m anagin g o r supervi si ng o fa pros ti tuti on business. I n a ddr es singa s ta te s ta tu te i n D ue nas -Alvarez , the Suprem e Cour t co ncl ud ed that to fi nd thata sta tute cre ates a cr i m e “ outsi de the gener i c defi ni ti on o fa l i ste d cri m e in a federa lst atute r equi re s m or e than the appli cati on o f legali m aginati on” to the s tatute’ s l anguage . 549 U
. S. at193. The Courtst ate d that there m ust be “a re al i sti c probabi l i ty that the S tat e w oul d app l y i ts s t a t u t e t o c o n d u c tth a tf a l l s o u t s i d e th e ” g e n e r i c c r i me l i ste d i n the aggr avat ed fel ony sta tute. Thi s i s the cas e here

. 8 U
. S. C. § 1 328 m ay en c om p as s the i m port ati on o f an al i en f orpurposes o fpro sti tuti on that i s e n tir ely “p er so n al” in n at u r e. Fo r ex am p le, inU ni t e d S t at e s v. C la rk, 5 82 F
. 3d 60 7, 6 14

- 15 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 9) , the de fen dan t pai d fo r a K enyan w om an to tr avelto the U ni ted S tat es, an d the n r equi r ed se x a s a r epa y m en t, e xpe ctingthe w oma n “ t o c o nt i nu e p r o s t i t ut i o n i n the Uni t e d S t a t e s, evi dentl y w i th hi m sel f as her sol e cl i ent. ” Id

. a t 611. Clark was c o nv i ct ed unde r8 U. S
. C. § 1 32 8, a nd w hi l e th e i nd i ctm ent a nd j ury i nstr ucti ons i ncl ud ed both the “pro st itu ti o n” a nd the “ o th eri m m o r alpur po se ” pr o ng s o fthe sta tute, the gov er nm ent’ s j ury ar gum ents “poi nted to C lar k’s i m port i ng an al i en f orpurposes o fpro sti tuti onN o. 10

- 3433 21 and ‘s exual expl oi tat i on, ’ ” a nd the “ge nera lve rdi ct co ul d ha ve b ee n o n e ith erbas i s. ” Id . at 6 12 ; 615 (em p h as is adde d)

. Thi s ac tu ala ppl i ca ti o n o fthe s ta tu te t ak es i t o ut o fthe the o r et i ca lr ea l m , a nd s how s tha t th e st atut e en com passes co nd uct that would notfi t withi n the agg ra v a t e d fe l o nyde fi ni t i o n o fI NA § 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( K) ( i ) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1101 (a)( 43)(K )( i)
. W e ar e al so no t co nv i nc ed th atthe a g g r av ated fel o ny provi si on a t i ssue here i nvi tes a “ci rcum stance- speci fi c” ap p ro ac h th at t h e S u p re m e C ou rtfou n d ap p lica b le in N ijh a w a n v . Ho lder, 1 29 S. Ct
. 2 29 4, 2 30 2 ( 20 09 ) ( fi ndi ng circum stan ce-sp ecifi c ap p roach ap p rop riat e to de term ine th e loss am ou nt un d er I N A § 101(a)(43)( M )( I ); 8 U.S
. C. § 1 101( a) ( 43) ( M ) ( i ), w h ich i ncl ud es as an ag gr avat ed fel ony “an o ffense that

. . . i nvol ves f raud o r decei t i n whi ch the l o s s t o the v i c t i m or vict i ms e xc e e ds $1 0 , 0 0 0 ” ) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )
. S u b s e c t i o n ( K) ( i ) , u n l i k e t he pr o vi si o n inv o l ve d i n N i j hawan , do es not i nc l ude a ny l anguage such a s “in wh i ch” tha t would ind i cate a need to peeri nto the c onduct i nvol ved or the speci fi c g oal or circ u m s t an c es of th e c on sp ira c y a t is su e; it on ly re quir es that the “ o

ffense ” r el at e to the ow ni ng, c o ntr ollin g, m an ag in g or su p er vis in g of a p ro st itu tio n bu siness, a questi on the co urt i s abl e t o a n sw er w i thout re sor ti ng to the f acts
. H ow ev er , w e n ot e t h at th e C ou rtinD uen a s - A l v a rez al so sta ted thatto sho w a “r ealistic p robabi l i ty” thata sta tute cre ate s a cr i m e o utsi de the gener i c defin i ti on o f a l i ste d cri m e in the ag gr avated fel ony provi si on, “a n offender, o fco urse , m ay show th at the sta tute w as so a p p l i e d i n h i s o wn c a s e . ” 5 4 9 U. S
. a t 1 9 3
. Whi l e th e22 N o. 10

- 3433 p lea ag re em en t s h ow ed t h a t F am ilia R os ar io h ad kn ow ledg e o fthe o bj ec t o fthe c o ns pi r ac y a nd a i ded an d ab et te d th at co n s p i r a c y, it st re tc h es th e b ou n d s o f logic to sugge st that hi s co nd uct, di str ibuti ng co nd om s, was conduct that“r el ate d to” the owning, co ntro l l i ng, m anagi ng o r supervisin g ofa pros ti tuti on business. The go vernm en t i ts el fa g r ee d t o a min o rrol e r edu ct i o n a t se nte nc i ng, bu t now a r g ue s th atF ami l i a Ro sa r i o ’ s ac ti o ns wer e “e ss en ti al ” to the o per at ion of th e bus i ne ss , a nd thus “r el ate to ” th e ow ni ng, co ntro l l i ng, m anaging o r s u p e r v i s i n go fth e b u s i n e s s e s a ti s s u e . Whi l e c o n d o ms ar e m an d at or y for th e o p er at ion of p ro st itu tio n bu sin e s se s inso m e jur isd ict ion s, s e e, e . g. , N e v . A d mi n . Co de c h . 441 A , § 80 5 (2 00 3), an d are ce r ta in ly “ es se n tia l” in th e sen se th at th eir us e am on g c om m ercial sex w orkers has pro ven t o hel p stem t h e spread o fH I V and other d ise as es , s e e, e . g. , Sea n C . C lar k, Ne ve rIn A Vac uum: Le ar ning f rom the Tha i Fight Ag ainstHIV , 13 W m . & M ar y J. W om en & L. 59 3 ( 2007 ), w e note thatther e was no re gu lat ion req u irin g t h eir u se in t h is c as e, an d th at th e b u sine ss o fpr o st i tu ti o n h as hi stor i ca l l y b ee n abl e to b e m an age d, own ed, co ntro l l ed and supervi sed witho ut such preca uti ons. Therefor e, we fi nd thatthe port i on o f8 U
. S. C. § 1 328, w hi ch pro hibi ts the “ i m port ati on into the Unite d Sta tes ofany al i en f orthe pu rpos e o fpro sti tuti on, ” i s no t ca teg o r i ca l l y a n “ o ffen se tha t r el at es to the o wni ng, c o ntr ollin g, m an ag in g or su p er vis in g of a p ro st itu tio n bu siness, ” a nd i s there f ore no t a n agg ra vate d fe l ony und er I N A § 1 01 ( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i) ; 8 U. S
. C. § 1 10 1( a) ( 43 ) ( K) ( i )
. The IJ an d B IA err ed in t h eir u se an d a p p l i c a t i on of th e m od ifi ed ca te g o r i ca la ppr o ac h.N o. 10

- 3433 23 I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e G RANTFa m ilia R os ar io’s p et itio n for re vie w , V ACATE the o r de ro fr e mov a l, a nd R EMA ND to the age ncy f orco nsi derat i on o fhi s app l i cati on forcance l l ati on o f re m ov al.

8- 24- 11