NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 19-2942 DELROY RICARDO TOOMER, a/k/a Rick Toomer, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (A206-192-324) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q. Golparvar Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) April 2, 2020 Before: GREENAWAY, JR., PORTER, and MATEY, Circuit Judges. (Opinion filed: April 17, 2020) OPINION ∗ ∗ This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. MATEY, Circuit Judge. After an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined he was removable from this country, Delroy Toomer applied to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. The IJ denied that application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed. Toomer now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision. We will deny that petition. I. BACKGROUND Toomer is a citizen of Jamaica. He came to the United States lawfully in 2011 but overstayed his visa. So the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued a Notice to Appear charging him as removable. The IJ sustained the charge and released Toomer on bond. But while released, Toomer was convicted of carrying an unlicensed firearm. DHS argued that this conviction was another ground for removability, and the IJ agreed. Toomer then applied to adjust his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. After a two-day hearing, the IJ held that Toomer met all the statutory requirements for adjustment. But the IJ concluded that Toomer failed to demonstrate sufficient positive factors to counterbalance the “many negative factors that weigh against him,” (A.R. at 62), such as his gang affiliations, his involvement in drug trafficking, domestic violence incidents involving an ex-girlfriend, and the firearm conviction. The IJ therefore denied the application. On appeal, the BIA affirmed. Toomer now petitions this Court for review. 1 1 We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decisions on adjustment-of- status applications. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We may, however, review “colorable claims or questions of law, . . . such as whether the BIA misapplied [a] legal standard” when considering such applications. Alimbaev v. Att’y Gen., 872 F.3d 188, 194 (3d Cir. 2017). 2 II. DISCUSSION A. The BIA Did Not Violate Its Own Precedent When Weighing the Equities Toomer argues that the agency violated its decision in Matter of Arreguin De Rodriguez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 38 (BIA 1995), when balancing the equitable factors in his case. We disagree. In Arreguin, a woman applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. Id. at 38. When balancing the equities, the IJ considered an arrest report noting the applicant’s prior arrest for alien smuggling. Id. at 42. On appeal, the BIA said that report deserved “little weight” since the arrest did not lead to a conviction and since there was no corroboration of the report’s underlying allegations. Id. The BIA also concluded that the IJ undervalued the applicant’s positive factors. Id. This rebalancing complete, the BIA ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals