The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has determined that a Wisconsin conviction for keeping a place of prostitution is categorically an aggravated felony related to the owning, controlling, managing, or supervising of a prostitution business.  The BIA acknowledged that it had construed the prostitution-related inadmissibility ground to require acts of sexual intercourse, but refused to find that prostitution must have the same definition in the aggravated felony context.  "We disagree with the Immigration Judge and with the case law on which he relied because the term 'prostitution' in section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) does not necessarily have the same meaning as it does in the inadmissibility provision at section 212(a)(2)(D).  It is not unusual for the same word to be used with different meanings in the same act, and there is no rule of statutory construction which precludes the courts from giving to the word the meaning which the Legislature intended it should have in each instance.”

Section 101(a)(43)(K)(i) of the Act is not limited to offenses involving sexual intercourse for hire. Rather, it encompasses offenses relating to the operation of a business that involves engaging in, or agreeing or offering to engage in, sexual conduct for anything of value.  Because the respondent did not argue that the Wisconsin statute encompasses conduct under the Board's newly-formulated definition of prostitution, the Board declined to explicitly what "sexual conduct" means in the prostitution-related aggravated felony context.

The full text of Matter of Ding can be found here: