Immigration Attorney
Immigration Lawyer Immigration Attorney Profile Legendary Stories Criminal Defense
click here to be intstantly connected to an Immigration Attorney click here to send us an email click here to read our blog
Provisional Stateside Waiver
Detained & Criminal Immigration
Defense From Deportation
Family Based Immigration
Marriage to a U.S. Citizen and Removal of Conditions
Non Immigrant Visas
Humanitairian & Special Immigration Programs
Employment Based Immigration
Maintaining Your Residency
Important Links You Need to Know
Resources: Immigration Consequences of Criminal Convictions
Who We Are
Criminal Law
Find Us
Find Us
View our Offices

BIA: Single Act of Soliciting Prostitution is not removable offense under INA 212(a)(2)(D)(ii)

The BIA addressed convictions for solicitating a prositute in Matter of GONZALEZ-ZOQUIAPAN , 24 I&N Dec. 549 (BIA 2008) and found that:

(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. ยง 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.

This BIA reached a postiive conclusion by taking a common sense, plain english reading of the stautue. Part of their analysis and full decision below:

"The language of section 212(a)(2)(D)(ii), on its face, relates only to persons who "procure" others for the purpose of prostitution or who receive the proceeds of prostitution. The dictionary meaning of the word "procure" is generally to obtain or acquire, but as applied to prostitution, it has a specific meaning, i.e., "[t]o obtain [a prostitute] for another." Webster's II New College Dictionary 882 (2001); see also Matter of R-M-, 7 I&N Dec. 392 (BIA 1957) (finding the respondent inadmissible under the predecessor statute to section 212(a)(2)(D)(ii) for soliciting men for the purpose of sexual intercourse with prostitutes). We agree with the respondent that under the most reasonable interpretation of the statute, the term "procure" does not extend to an act of solicitation of a prostitute on one's own behalf. If Congress had intended to include "solicitation" of prostitution as a ground of inadmissibility, it could easily have employed that term, as it has done in other provisions of the Act. See, e.g., sections 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(IV), (V) of the Act."


Ricky Malik, Esq.    


No Comments Posted
8620 Centerville Road, Manassas, VA 20110 7505 New Hampshire Ave. Suite 318 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Watch Us On YouTube View Our LinkIn Profile Click here to subscribe to our Rss Feed

The information on this Virginia Lawyer / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The Law Offices of Ricky Malik, P.C. represents clients in all 50 states of the United States and the World over, including Manassas, VA, Prince William County, Arlington, Fairfax, Centreville, Alexandria, Falls Church, Roslyn, Washington, DC, Loudon County, Lorton, Woodbridge, Virginia, Takoma Park, MD, Langley Park, Bethesda, Rockville, Hyattsville, Montgomery County, Prince George's County, Columbia, and Baltimore, Maryland.