NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ Nos. 19-2780 & 20-1492 ___________ BHARATKUMAR GIRISHKUMAR THAKKER, AKA Barry Thakker, AKA Bharathum Thakker, AKA Bharatkum G. Thakker, AKA Bharatkumar G. Thakker, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A030-811-876) Immigration Judge: Kuyomars Q Golparvar ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) September 15, 2020 Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and PORTER, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 25, 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. PER CURIAM Bharatkumar Thakker petitions for review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will dismiss one petition for lack of jurisdiction but will grant the other petition. Thakker, a citizen of India, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 1973. He was subsequently charged as removable for retail theft convictions but an Immigration Judge (IJ) granted him cancellation of removal in 2009. After additional theft convictions and another charge of removability, an IJ granted him readjustment of status in 2012. After another conviction for retail theft, Thakker was again charged as removable in 2017 for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Represented by counsel, he contested removability and applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. An IJ found him removable and denied relief, and the BIA dismissed his appeal. Thakker filed a timely pro se petition for review which was docketed at No. 19- 2780. In September 2019, Thakker filed a pro se motion in the BIA to reopen the proceedings, alleging that counsel had been ineffective for failing to challenge whether his crimes involved moral turpitude. The BIA, by a single member of the Board, denied the motion to reopen. Thakker filed a petition for review which was docketed at No. 20- 1492. 2 No. 19-2780 In this petition for review, Thakker challenges only the denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility. He argues in his brief that the IJ abused his discretion in determining that Thakker had not shown that his removal would result in extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. However, while the IJ found that Thakker had not established extreme hardship, he also determined that, even if he had, Thakker did not merit a waiver in the exercise of discretion. On appeal, the BIA assumed that Thakker had established extreme hardship but agreed that he was not entitled to the waiver as a matter of discretion. Thus, the waiver of inadmissibility was denied as a matter of discretion. We do not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary decisions of the Attorney General regarding such waivers. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h) &1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Cospito v. Att’y Gen., 539 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[O]ur jurisdiction does not extend to an agency’s factual and discretionary determinations underlying the denial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals