Case: 21-60423 Document: 00516673578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 10, 2023 No. 21-60423 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Tomas Magdy Mady, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A058 574 948 Before Jones, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Tomas Mady is a citizen of Egypt and lawful permanent resident of the United States. In 2012, he was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery in violation of Tennessee law and was sentenced to three years in prison. The federal government found him seven years later and placed him in removal proceedings for an “aggravated felony” conviction. * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60423 Document: 00516673578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2023 No. 21-60423 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Mady applied for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Immigration Judge (IJ) sustained the charge of removal because his conviction constituted an aggravated felony; denied withholding because he committed a particularly serious crime; and rejected CAT deferral of removal on the absence of proof that he would likely suffer state-sanctioned torture if he returned to Egypt. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) found no error and dismissed his appeal. Mady now petitions this court for review. We DENY his petition. I. Jurisdiction We generally lack jurisdiction to review “any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed” an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). 1 But “we retain jurisdiction to review related questions of law, including whether an alien’s conviction constitutes an aggravated felony.” Fosu v. Garland, 36 F.4th 634, 636–37 (5th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We review the BIA’s decision and will consider the IJ’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The limited factual findings over which we have jurisdiction are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. at 517–18. II. Removability An alien is removable if he is convicted of an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). As defined by Congress, an “aggravated felony” includes any “crime of violence . . . for which the term of 1 This jurisdictional bar does not apply to CAT orders. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020). 2 Case: 21-60423 Document: 00516673578 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2023 No. 21-60423 imprisonment [is] at least one year,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), 2 as well as attempts to commit an aggravated felony, id. § 1101(a)(43)(U). The Attorney General asserts that aggravated robbery qualifies as a crime of violence and that …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals