O�·L - - -

_.
';·� '--'\
U.S. Department of Justice
;
.

. I:
. ··-,;,j
Executive Office for Immigration Review
:
I
I , . .,1,-;
' .
Board ofImmigration Appeals
�

\��-�--:__·_�·:·�---- .
,

Office ofthe Clerk

5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2000

Falls Church. Vtrgm1a 22041

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

Koop, Lisa Katharine OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - CHI
NIJC 525 West Van Buren Street
110 E. Washington St. Chicago, IL 60607
Goshen, IN 46528

Name: A ,M E A -871

Date of this notice: 2/10/2020

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

Sincerely,

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk

Enclosure
Panel Members:
Wendtland, Linda S.
Wilson, Earle B.
Greer, Anne J.

:.1 .. ., ''
Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index

Cite as: M-E-A-, AXXX XXX 871 (BIA Feb. 10, 2020)
'
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

File: A -871 - Chicago, IL Date:

In re: M E A FEB 1 O 2020

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

APPEAL

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Lisa Koop, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: William Padish

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Cancellation of removal

In a decision dated November 2, 2017, the Immigration Judge denied the respondent's
application for cancellation of removal under section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 229b(b) (2012), and ordered her removed from the United States to her native
Ecuador. The respondent now appeals from the denial of her cancellation of removal application. 1
The Department of Homeland Security ("OHS") opposes the appeal. The appeal will be sustained
and the record remanded.

In 2010, the respondent sustained a federal conviction for "misuse of a social security number''
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(8). The main issue on appeal is whether that conviction was
for a crime involving moral turpitude ("CIMT") under section 2 l 2(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act
8 U.S.C. § l l 82(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), that renders the respondent ineligible for cancellation of removal
pursuant to section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § l 229b(b)( 1)(C).2 The United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit remanded this matter to us in 2016 for further consideration of
this issue, Arias v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2016), and we in tum remanded the matter to the
Immigration Judge.

On de novo review, and absent contrary circuit law, we conclude that 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B)
does not define a CIMT under the categorical approach because the minimum conduct that has a
realistic probability of being prosecuted under the statute-i.e., using a fictitious social security
number to get a job and support one's family, id. at 828-is not "reprehensible" enough to warrant
CIMT treatment, as indicated by the court in Arias. Arias v. Lynch, 834 F.3d at 826-827. Maller
ofSilva-Trevino, 26 l&N Dec. 826, 834 (BIA 2016) (holding that a crime requires "reprehensible

1
The respondent concedes removability by virtue of her unlawful presence in the United States
(IJ at 1-2, Nov. 2, 2017; Tr. at 20, July 12, 2011). Cancellation of removal is the only form of
relief she seeks.
2 The respondent also argues on appeal that the CIMT concept is unconstitutionally vague. We
express no opinion on that subject. We have no authority to entertain constitutional challenges to
the immigration laws. Maller ofIsidro-Zamorano, 25 l&N Dec. 829, 832 (BIA 2012).

Cite as: M-E-A-, AXXX XXX 871 (BIA Feb. 10, 2020)
A -871

conduct" to qualify as a CIMT). Moreover, to the extent Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 710 F.3d
734 (7th Cir. 2013), can be read to support a contrary result, we are bound by law of the case
principles to follow the Arias court's determination that Marin-Rodriguez is inapposite. See 834
F.3d at 830.

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

As 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(8) is not phrased in the disjunctive, no question of "divisibility"
arises. See Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016). Accordingly, the offense's categorical
overbreadth vis-a-vis the CIMT concept eliminates the respondent's conviction as a bar to her
eligibility for cancellation of removal. The Immigration Judge has not yet decided whether the
respondent is otherwise eligible for, and deserving of, cancellation of removal, and we express no
present opinion on those subjects. Instead, we will remand the record for such further proceedings
as may be necessary and for the entry of a new decision.

ORDER: The appeal is sustained, the Immigration Judge's decision is vacated in part, and the
record is remanded for further proceedings and for the entry of a new decision.

2
Cite as: M-E-A-, AXXX XXX 871 (BIA Feb. 10, 2020)