NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 17-2445 ___________ ARNOLD ALBERT AGUILAR-QUISPE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A035-922-271) Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars Q. Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 16, 2018 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., BIBAS and ROTH, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 24, 2018) ___________ OPINION * ___________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Arnold Albert Aguilar-Quispe petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying Aguilar-Quispe’s motion to terminate removal proceedings and his request for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). For the reasons that follow, we will deny the petition. Aguilar-Quispe is a native and citizen of Peru who was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1977. In 1993, he was convicted on federal charges of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine, and kidnapping, for which he was sentenced to 405 months’ imprisonment. In 2015, the Department of Homeland Security charged Aguilar-Quispe with removability as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), a controlled substance offense, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and two crimes involving moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii). Aguilar-Quispe applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the CAT. He also filed a “Motion to Estop Removal Proceedings,” which was construed as a motion to terminate proceedings, arguing that his convictions were illegal because his attorney advised him that he would not be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea, and the Government affirmatively misled him to believe the same under the terms of the plea agreement. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Aguilar-Quispe removable, and denied all requests for relief. In denying the motion to terminate proceedings, the IJ explained that, despite a pending motion for post-conviction relief, Aguilar-Quispe’s convictions were 2 final, and the immigration court was bound by those convictions. The IJ noted further that Aguilar-Quispe was not eligible for relief under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), 1 as it does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. See Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342, 344 (2013). Finally, the IJ determined that Aguilar-Quispe was not eligible for discretionary relief under the version of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), which was in force at the time he pleaded guilty, because he had served more than five years in prison. See Lupera-Espinoza v. Att’y Gen., 716 F.3d 781, 787 (3d Cir. 2013) (holding that provision “plainly bar[red] discretionary relief to aliens who ha[d] served at least five years’ imprisonment for one or more ‘aggravated felonies.’”) (citation omitted). On appeal, Aguilar-Quispe challenged ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals