U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5/07 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET

333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
Detroit, Ml 48207

Name: MANDUJANO-TORRES, ARTURO

A 09 1-480-873
Date of this notice: 6/30/2015

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

DcrutL

ca.AA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index/
Cite as: Arturo Mandujano-Torres, A091 480 873 (BIA June 30, 2015)

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

Acklin, Christopher James

Avanti Law Group, PLLC
600 28th St. SW
Wyoming, Ml 49509

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals
Office of the Clerk
5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000
Falls Church, Virginia 20530

DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - DET

333 Mt. Elliott St., Rm. 204
Detroit, Ml 48207

Name: MANDUJANO-TORRES, ARTURO

A 091-480-873

Date of this notice: 6/30/2015

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.5(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.
Sincerely,

D0ruu...

{!t1./lA)

Donna Carr
Chief Clerk
Enclosure
Panel Members:
Grant, Edward R.

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

MANDUJANO-TORRES, ARTURO
A091-480-873
C/0 CALHOUN CNTY - DHS CUSTODY
185 E. MICHIGAN
BATTLE CREEK, Ml 49014

Userteam:

Cite as: Arturo Mandujano-Torres, A091 480 873 (BIA June 30, 2015)
H:U.:.fu.

.-p Z.+f.,

...

U.S. Department of Justice

Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia 20530

File: A091 480 873 - Detroit, MI

Date:

JUN 3 02015

In re: ARTURO MANDUJANO-TORRES a.k.a. Arturo Torres

APPEAL
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Christopher J. Acklin, Esquire
ON BEHALF OF DHS:

Jason A. Ritter
Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Remand
The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, who previously adjusted his status to lawful
permanent resident on or about July 24, 1991, appeals the decision of the Immigration Judge,
dated March 30, 2015, ordering his removal from the United States. The Department of
Homeland Security opposes the appeal. The record will be remanded.
We review Immigration Judges' findings of fact for clear error, but questions of law,
discretion, and judgment, and all other issues in appeals, de novo. 8 C.F.R. 1003.l(d)(3)(i),
(ii).
We will remand the record to the Immigration Court for further proceedings. The record
reflects that the respondent has been convicted for the offense of "possession of child sexually
abusive material," in violation of section 750.145C4-A of the Michigan Compiled Laws (I.J. at
1-2; Exh. 2). The Immigration Judge found that such offense qualifies as an aggravated felony
under section 10l(a)(43)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(1), and therefore, subjects the
respondent to removal from the United States pursuant to section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8
U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (1.J. at 1-2). The Immigration Judge further concluded that
respondent's offense also renders him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal under
section 240A(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a) (I.J. at 2). See section 240A(a)(3) of the Act.
In reaching his conclusion that the respondent has been convicted of an aggravated felony,
the Immigration Judge found that the Michigan statute under which the respondent was
convicted is "substantially similar" to the federal statute (I.J. at 2). However, the Immigration
Judge's findings of fact and legal analysis are insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
In particular, the Immigration Judge's decision does not include an elements-based analysis of
whether the respondent's offense categorically qualifies as an aggravated felony under section
101(a)(43)(I) of the Act. See Descamps v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013) (examining
how the categorical approach is to be applied as well as under what circumstances the modified
categorical approach is to be used). Thus, we will remand the record to the Immigration Judge
for further analysis of the particular statute involved in this case, and to again determine whether
the respondent is subject to removal from this country, and if so, if he has satisfied his burden to
demonstrate eligibility for cancellation of removal.
Cite as: Arturo Mandujano-Torres, A091 480 873 (BIA June 30, 2015)

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

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

A091480 873
Accordingly, the following order will be entered.
ORDER The record is remanded to the Immigration Court for further proceedings
consistent with the foregoing opinion, and entry of a new decision.

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

2
Cite as: Arturo Mandujano-Torres, A091 480 873 (BIA June 30, 2015)

March 30, 2015

File: A091-480-873
In the Matter of

ARTURO MANDUJANO-TORRES
RESPONDENT

)
)
)
)

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

CHARGES:

A violation of Section 237(a)(2)(A)(3).

APPLICATIONS:

Respondent seeks to file an application for cancellation of removal

for certain permanent residents, but does not have proper forms
before the Court today.

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: CHRISTOPHER ACKLIN

ON BEHALF OF OHS: JASON RITTER

ORAL DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

The respondent is a male native and citizen of Mexico. The Department
of Homeland Security initiated these removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear
dated February 17 of 2015, marked as the first exhibit on March 2, 2015. The five
factual allegations have been admitted with counsel. Counsel has denied, on behalf of
respondent, the charge under 237(a)(2)(A)(3). However, the Government has
submitted the conviction records, which have been admitted into evidence, showing that
respondent was convicted by no contest plea of using a computer to commit a crime

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

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION COURT
DETROIT, MICHIGAN

involving child sexually abusive material, as well as possession of child sexually abusive
material.

Respondent has argued to the Court that the Michigan statute is not
substantially similar to the federal statute. The Court has been persuaded by the
Government's argument that these statutes are substantially similar and that, therefore,
respondent has been convicted of an aggravated felony and has so held--hBecause of
that respondent is thus not eligible for cancellation of removal, as an aggravated felon,.:.
tihe Court is ordering respondent's removal to Mexico on the charges in the Notice to
Appear.

Please see the next page for electronic

signature

A091-480-873

DAVID H. PARUCH
Immigration Judge

March 30, 2015

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

ORDER

/Isl/
Immigration Judge DAVID H. PARUCH

A091-480-873

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

paruchd on May 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM GMT

March 30, 2015