Francisco Fajardo-Rebollar v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 21-10390 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10390 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ FRANCISCO FAJARDO-REBOLLAR, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-954-204 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10390 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 21-10390 Before JORDAN, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Francisco Fajardo-Rebollar, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the BIA’s order affirming the IJ’s finding that he was ineligible for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C). Mr. Fajardo argues that the BIA erred in affirming the denial of his application by finding that he had not established 10 years of continuous physical presence in the United States. Because his Georgia conviction for pandering under O.C.G.A. § 16-6-12 was a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) that rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal, we affirm on that ground. As background, Mr. Fajardo entered the United States with- out inspection at or near Nogales, Arizona, on August 1, 1999. In April of 2006, he pleaded nolo contendere in Georgia to pander- ing—that is, solicitation of prostitution—and received a sentence of 12 months’ probation. See O.C.G.A. § 16-6-12. In August of 2011, DHS served him with an NTA, charging him as removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), for being present in the United States without having been admitted or pa- roled. The NTA lacked a time and place to appear. Mr. Fajardo admitted to the factual allegations in the NTA and conceded the charge of removability but filed an amended ap- plication for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status for USCA11 Case: 21-10390 Document: 30-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 Page: 3 of 8 21-10390 Opinion of the Court 3 certain non-permanent resident aliens. In his application, he al- leged that he had resided in the United States since August 27, 1999, but left on June 1, 2003, and returned without inspection on March 1, 2004. The IJ entered an oral order pretermitting the application for cancellation of removal because Mr. Fajardo failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence within the United States be- tween March 1, 2004, and when he was served the NTA, on August 31, 2011. Alternatively, the IJ found that his Georgia pandering conviction was a CIMT that rendered him ineligible for cancella- tion of removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s order, dismissing Mr. Fajardo’s ap- peal. As to his pandering conviction, specifically, it concluded that Georgia’s pandering statute was not categorically overbroad and, thus, it was bound by BIA precedent and that of several other cir- cuits concluding that solicitation of prostitution is a CIMT. We review only the decision of the BIA, except to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts the IJ’s decision. See Flores-Pana- meno v. U.S. Att’y Gen., …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals