Prus v. Holder
660 F.3d 144
2d Cir.2011Background
- Prus, a Ukrainian native and derivative refugee, became a lawful permanent resident in 1996.
- She was convicted in New York in 2007 of promoting prostitution in the third degree (NY Penal Law §230.25(1)).
- She was charged in 2007 as removable under INA §237(a)(2)(A)(iii) for an aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i).
- The IJ ruled the NY conviction did not constitute an aggravated felony because NY’s definition of prostitution is broader than the federal definition.
- The BIA reversed, holding the conviction did constitute an aggravated felony; on remand, Prus sought asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, which the IJ and BIA denied.
- The Second Circuit grants the petition, vacates removal, and remands to terminate removal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY §230.25(1) fits within INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) as an aggravated felony. | Prus argues NY prostitution broadens beyond federal ‘prostitution’ meaning. | BIA contends NY statute relates to owning/managing a prostitution business, fitting §101(a)(43)(K)(i). | Not an aggravated felony; NY conduct does not involve the prostitution definition tied to the INA. |
| Whether the term ‘prostitution’ in INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) should be read using the BIA’s broader definition. | identical words mean identical meaning; Chevron deference supports the same definition. | BIA’s interpretation entitled to Chevron deference given lack of statutory definition. | The INA’s ‘prostitution’ term refers to promiscuous sexual intercourse for hire; court applies that meaning. (Outcome favors Prus) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamagate v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2004) (‘relates to’ is narrower than broad criminal definitions; reviews use de novo; limits of ‘aggravated felony’)
- Richards v. Ashcroft, 400 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (categorical approach governs state-law offenses for aggravated felonies)
- Blake v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2007) (procedural approach to comparing state and federal definitions of a crime)
- Mizrahi v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2007) (limits INA §101(a)(43)(K)(i) to crimes involving prostitution itself)
- Matter of Gonzalez-Zoquiapan, 24 I. & N. Dec. 549 (BIA 2008) (defines prostitution for INA context; Chevron deference applied)
- Theodoropoulos v. INS, 358 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2004) (identical-words rule across parts of the act; supports same-meaning interpretation)