NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 20-2950 __________ SUHAIL FAROOQ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA __________ On Petition for Review of an Order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A214-821-489) Immigration Judge: Shelly W. Schools __________ Argued on September 20, 2022 Before: AMBRO*, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Filed: February 8, 2023 Rachel M. Rosenberg Will W. Sachse Dechert LLP 2929 Arch Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 * Judge Ambro assumed senior status February 6, 2023. Jacob Burnett [ARGUED] University of Pennsylvania School of Law 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Counsel for Petitioner Brian Boynton Principal Deputy Assistant Att’y General Civil Division Melissa Neiman-Kelting Assistant Director Office of Immigration Litigation Margot P. Kniffin [ARGUED] United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 878 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for Respondent __________ OPINION* __________ RESTREPO, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Suhail Farooq, a noncitizen convicted of wire fraud, petitions for review of his final order of removal. Following an appeal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed Farooq’s order of removal because his conviction constituted a “partic- ularly serious crime” but remanded the matter for further fact-finding on his Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim. At the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) behest, Farooq waited * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 2 until the remanded proceedings on his CAT claim concluded before filing his petition for review. Consequently, he untimely filed. This Court does not have jurisdiction over untimely filed petitions for review. A petition for review of a final order of removal must be filed within 30 days after the order becomes final. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(A), a final or- der of removal is an order that “conclud[es] that the alien is deportable or order[s] depor- tation.” That is the case even if the BIA affirmed the final order of removal but re- manded the case for further proceedings on the CAT claim. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (holding that CAT orders are distinct from, and do not affect the finality of, final orders of removal). Nevertheless, we have jurisdiction over this matter because the Immigration Judge officially misled Farooq by instructing him to wait to file the petition until the remand proceedings concluded. Huang v. I.N.S., 47 F.3d 615, 617 (3d Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (stating an appellate tribunal has jurisdiction to review an otherwise untimely appeal if the petitioner was “misled by the court”) . On the merits, Farooq argues that the BIA erred by misapplying the two-step legal framework, set out in In re N-A-M-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 336, 342 (BIA 2007), for determin- ing whether a conviction constitutes a “particularly serious crime” for purposes of the Im- migration and Nationality Act (“INA”). We agree. The Government concedes error but asserts that remand …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals