NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 20-1085 ______________ EDERJUNIO COELHO GOMES, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ______________ On Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA No. A 205-901-478) Immigration Judge: Daniel A. Morris ______________ Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 30, 2020 BEFORE: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges (Opinion Filed: July 1, 2020) ______________ OPINION* ______________ GREENBERG, Circuit Judge. ____________________ *This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Ederjunio Coelho Gomes (“Petitioner”) has filed this petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (“petition”), challenging the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings and dismissing his appeal from a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”). For the reasons stated below, we will deny the petition. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND We write only for the attention of the parties and therefore limit our recitation of the facts to those necessary to decide this appeal. Petitioner is a Brazilian citizen who illegally entered the United States in or around January 2001. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner was convicted on a plea of guilty in the New Jersey Superior Court, Union County, of two counts: (1) possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-5.2(a) and (2) possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute within 1000 feet of school property under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:35-7. On both counts, the controlled dangerous substance was gamma hydroxybutyrate, commonly referred to as “GHB”. Petitioner alleges he did not sell the GHB but rather exchanged it for cocaine, to which he was addicted at the time. The state court sentenced him to a five-year term of probation pursuant to New Jersey’s drug-court program. On January 29, 2016, the Department of Homeland Security instituted removal proceedings against Petitioner. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention 2 Against Torture (“CAT”), averring that if he was removed to Brazil a Brazilian gang known as the PCC 1 would harm him and his family. The IJ denied Petitioner’s application and ordered him removed. Petitioner appealed to the Board but on December 19, 2019, it issued its decision adopting and affirming the IJ’s decision and denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen the case. He then appealed to this Court. 2 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW When the Board adopts and affirms an IJ’s decision and there is a further appeal to this Court, we review the decisions of both the IJ and the Board. See Shehu v. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 652, 657 (3d Cir. 2007). We review the administrative factual findings using the substantial evidence standard under which the Board’s “findings must be upheld unless the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Shardar v. Ashcroft, 382 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals