JIMENEZ-CEDILLO, 27 I. & N. Dec. 1

Background

Respondent (Mexican national) pled guilty in Maryland to knowingly soliciting a minor (or officer posing as a minor) with intent to commit unlawful sexual activity (Md. Code §§ 3-324(b), 3-307).
He was convicted and sentenced (2 years, 1.5 years suspended) and placed in removal proceedings.
Immigration Judge found respondent removable for (1) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT) and (2) unlawful presence; granted voluntary departure conditioned on posting a bond.
Respondent appealed only the CIMT determination, arguing Maryland statutes reach consensual conduct and do not require mens rea as to victim age, so conviction is not categorically a CIMT.
BIA applied the categorical approach to the divisible solicitation statute (3-324(b)) and the underlying sexual-offense provisions (3-307), and considered whether lack of age mens rea precludes a finding of moral turpitude.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether respondent’s conviction under Md. §3-324(b) is a crime involving moral turpitude	Respondent: statute reaches consensual conduct and lacks mens rea as to age, so not categorically a CIMT	DHS: §3-324(b) is divisible; conviction was for knowingly soliciting a minor to commit §3-307 acts, which necessarily involve very young victims or significant age gaps and are turpitudinous	Held: Conviction is categorically a CIMT; §3-324(b) contains culpable mental state (knowingly) and targets proscribed §3-307 conduct
Whether lack of mens rea regarding victim’s age defeats a CIMT finding for sexual-offense statutes protecting minors	Respondent: because §§3-307(3)–(5) permit conviction despite reasonable mistake of age, they lack required culpable mental state for CIMT	DHS: statutes protect children and necessarily reach particularly young victims or significant age differentials, so moral culpability is inherent despite no age mens rea	Held: A sexual offense enacted to protect children is a CIMT when victim is under 14, or under 16 with a significant age differential, even without age mens rea
Whether solicitation of an undercover officer posing as a minor can support CIMT classification	Respondent: (implicit) solicitation of an officer is not sexual abuse of an actual child	DHS: Solicitation of an undercover officer is equivalent to attempt to engage a minor; inchoate offense looks to the underlying offense, which is turpitudinous	Held: Soliciting an officer posing as a minor qualifies (treated as attempt at underlying CIMT)
Whether voluntary departure remains after failure to post bond	Respondent: had voluntary departure from IJ	DHS: bond was condition precedent; no proof of payment	Held: Voluntary departure not reinstated; alternate order of removal enforced

Key Cases Cited

Mehboob v. Attorney General of the U.S., 549 F.3d 272 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding strict‑liability sexual offenses against minors can be CIMTs based on community consensus protecting children)
Travis v. State, 98 A.3d 281 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (interpreting lack of consent element in Maryland sexual‑contact provisions)
Moore v. State, 882 A.2d 256 (Md. 2005) (Maryland decision recognizing mistake‑of‑age defense absent for certain child‑victim provisions)
Garnett v. State, 632 A.2d 797 (Md. 1993) (describing statutory rape as strict liability to protect young persons)
Castle v. INS, 541 F.2d 1064 (4th Cir. 1976) (adult sexual intercourse with a 15‑year‑old is morally turpitudinous per se)
Hernandez‑Alvarez v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 763 (7th Cir. 2005) (solicitation of an undercover investigator posing as a minor qualifies as attempted sexual abuse of a minor)
Larios‑Reyes v. Lynch, 843 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2016) (deference to BIA reasoning on age differential in sexual‑abuse‑of‑a‑minor definition)
Esquivel‑Quintana v. Holder, 810 F.3d 1019 (6th Cir. 2016) (consideration of substantial age differential in aggravated‑felony sexual‑abuse analysis)
Reyes v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2016) (inchoate offenses judged by underlying substantive crime for CIMT analysis)
Gomez‑Gutierrez v. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2016) (solicitation of prostitution is a CIMT because the underlying offense is turpitudinous)
Rohit v. Holder, 670 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012) (same approach to solicitation/inchoate CIMT analysis)